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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds behavior beyond that: the data source (public job boards), the freshness cadence (updated weekly), and the fact that only currently-open roles are returned.

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 purpose followed by filters and freshness. Every clause adds information; nothing is redundant padding.

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 should ideally sketch the returned fields (company, role, job link), which it does not. For a simple filter-only search tool with full annotation coverage and a well-explained taxonomy, it is otherwise complete.

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 coverage is only 33% (region and limit have no schema descriptions), so the description carries real weight: it spells out the role taxonomy (SDR, BDR, account executive, head of sales) and the region options in prose. Only limit meaning is left to the schema, which is nearly self-evident.

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 gives a specific verb (Lists) plus a well-scoped resource (venture-backed B2B YC startups with open sales roles), and names the source (public job boards) and freshness. It implicitly separates itself from find_companies_hiring_salespeople_sweden via the YC/B2B framing, but never explicitly routes the agent to a sibling, so it stops short of a 5.

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 tells the agent which filters exist (region, role type) and their accepted values, which implies how to narrow results, but gives no when-to-use/when-not guidance and never contrasts with the sibling tools. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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