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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the result set is public company information only with no applicant data, and results are cursor-paginated.

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, zero waste, with the core purpose front-loaded and the follow-up tool routing and data-scope caveat following in priority order.

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?

With no output schema, the description usefully signals that the response carries a slug usable by other tools, and it bounds the data scope. The remaining gap is pagination semantics (how to obtain and reuse the cursor), which is only named, not explained.

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% for all three parameters, so the description must carry the load. 'search' implies what q does and 'cursor pagination' implies what after does, but nothing is said about limit, the cursor's opaque format, or default/maximum values.

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+resource ('Discover company-published profiles') plus the mechanism (search, cursor pagination), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It stops short of explicitly differentiating from the sibling list_companies, leaving the published-vs-unpublished distinction to be inferred.

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?

It gives strong downstream guidance ('use the returned slug with get_published_company or list_company_openings'), which is implied usage for a discovery tool. However, it never says when to pick this over list_companies or when not to use it, so the selection guidance is incomplete.

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