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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds useful behaviors: paginated job cards, application links, freshness, a shareable filtered URL, and the caveat that 'Unknown work arrangement is not remote.' It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but the annotations already carry the safety profile.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: scope/filters, return value, routing guidance, and a caveat. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundant restating of the title or schema.

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 search tool with output schema, readOnly hints, and no required parameters, the description covers what the tool searches, what it returns, how to combine results, and a work-mode edge case. Nothing essential for selecting or invoking the tool is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 18%, the description compensates partially by explaining 'partial keywords, company aliases, location, work arrangement and experience filters,' mapping to query, company, location, workMode, and experience. However, it says nothing about role, sort, tags, offset, or personalized, so not all parameters are clarified.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Search the same employer postings as /jobs' with named filters (keywords, company aliases, location, work arrangement, experience). This differentiates search_jobs from sibling tools like search_events, search_people, and search_companies by scoping it to job postings.

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 provides explicit guidance to use 'a jobs section in search_guide when combining other results,' which gives a concrete alternative for combined-search scenarios. It does not enumerate full when/when-not conditions against all siblings, so it stops short of a 5.

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