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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states 'Search jobs' and 'Filter by type and recency', giving minimal behavioral disclosure. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, pagination behavior, response format, or any side effects.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is minimal but not entirely inadequate. It covers the search dimensions and mentions filtering, but it omits context such as the supported countries, sorting options, pagination, and result limits, which are present in the schema. The tool is a straightforward search, so the description meets a baseline completeness.

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 100%, with each parameter including a description in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds a high-level summary like 'title, skill, location' and 'type and recency', which maps to parameters (query, location, full_time, max_days_old), but it does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('jobs'), with clarifying dimensions (title, skill, location). It distinguishes general job search functionality from siblings like company_jobs and remote_jobs, though it does not explicitly say 'for general job search, not company-specific or remote-only'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools like remote_jobs or company_jobs are not mentioned, and there are no exclusions or context cues for selection.

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