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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavior beyond that: one role per company by default, and exclusions being applied before pagination (an ordering guarantee that matters for result counts). It still omits how preferences affect ranking, what cursor contains, and what each intent mode changes.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the two most surprising defaults. No filler, though the scarce space is spent on defaults rather than on the schema semantics that are actually missing.

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 8 parameters, nested Filters/Preferences/Salary objects, multiple enums, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, this is a complex tool. A three-sentence description leaves an agent unable to populate most of the schema correctly, especially the intent and preference-weighting semantics that drive the ranking.

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%, so the description must carry the burden, and it does not. It gestures at 'filters', 'preferences', and 'exclusions' but never explains the distinctions between any_tags/required_tags/excluded_tags, required_skills vs skills preferences, the salary sub-object, mode, china, or the intent/cursor/count controls.

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 a small page of sourced jobs') plus the axes it operates on (filters and weighted preferences). It does not differentiate from the sibling get_jobs, which an agent could easily confuse with this search tool.

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?

Phrases like 'small page' and 'weighted preferences' imply a relevance-ranked discovery use case, but the description never says when to use this versus get_jobs or search_companies. The intent enum (best_matches/discover_more/latest) that would express this choice is left unexplained.

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