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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that query matches title/company/tags, lists valid department values, specifies country as English name or 'Remote', and work_format as office/remote/hybrid. It also notes the return limit of up to 50 per page. However, it omits details like pagination defaults, how filters combine (AND/OR), whether the query is fuzzy or exact, and any auth or side-effect information. It covers the basics but not the full behavioral 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose and then details the parameters. It uses semicolons to separate parameter guidance, which is efficient. The department list is long but necessary to give valid values. There is no fluff; every sentence adds information.

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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain the return value and any operational nuances. It only says 'Returns up to 50 per page,' which is minimal. It does not describe the result structure, error handling, sorting, or how page/limit interact with the max of 50. For a tool with six parameters and no other structured documentation, this is incomplete but not severely lacking.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain all parameters. It explicitly covers query, department (with a list of valid values), country, and work_format, and implies page/limit via the 'up to 50 per page' statement. It does not explain the default values of page and limit or that limit can exceed 50, which is a gap. Nevertheless, it adds substantial meaning beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Search') and resource ('live iGaming jobs') with clear scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job (which presumably fetches a single job) and list_professions (which lists professions) by focusing on a search over jobs with multiple filters. The examples and enumerated values make the tool's function unmistakable.

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 a clear context: this is a search tool for iGaming jobs, and it explains what each filter does. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, but the sibling names (get_job, get_company) imply that this is for discovery while those are for specific entities. This is sufficient but not as explicit as it could be.

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