Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results are restricted to published active openings, apply links are public, and existing confidentiality/salary controls are honored — useful constraints an agent cannot infer from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: purpose and scope first, then what the payload contains and excludes. No filler, no repetition of the name.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple read-only search with no output schema, the description covers scope and filtering well. But with zero parameter documentation it leaves an agent guessing about query semantics and pagination defaults, which matters for invoking it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%: page, page_size and query carry only type/min/max bounds with no meaning attached. The description does not explain what 'query' matches (title? skills? location?), how paging behaves, or what page_size defaults to, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search ... public Swissmote job board') and scopes the result set to published active openings. It carves out the boundary against internal data ('No candidate or hiring data'), though it never names the sibling read_job_board_scope, so differentiation is by implication rather than explicit routing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the word 'public' and the exclusion of candidate/hiring data, which hints that internal-data lookups belong elsewhere. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of read_job_board_scope as the alternative, and no stated preconditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.