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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that pagination is supported via cursor and that descriptions are omitted unless include_description is set. It does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or mention rate limits, but the search nature implies safety; the disclosed behaviors are relevant and clear.

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?

The description is informative but not bloated. It packs multiple key points (purpose, examples, pagination, description omission, sibling differentiation) into a few sentences without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool has 13 optional parameters, the description provides enough context for an agent to decide when to use it and how to navigate results. It covers the primary use case, pagination, and a key alternative (job_changes). It does not explain every parameter, but the schema fills that gap.

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 high (77%) and the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the cursor usage (from a previous meta.next_cursor) and the include_description default behavior. This clarifies two parameters that could otherwise be ambiguous.

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 clearly states the tool searches open job postings and gives concrete example use cases (who is hiring, what is open by location, remote positions). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool job_changes, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool (one-off questions) and when not to (do not poll in a loop, use job_changes for changes). It also mentions pagination via cursor, giving practical usage context.

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