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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only that results are paged and the HTTP route, without saying what fields are matched or how many results a query typically returns.

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?

One compact sentence with the core scope front-loaded and no filler. The trailing endpoint fragment earns little but costs almost nothing.

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?

Annotations carry the safety profile, the schema carries all three parameters with defaults and pagination linkage via next_page, and no output schema exists to explain. For a simple paged search tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 100%, so page, per_page, and query are all documented with defaults and bounds in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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 ("Free-text search over job orders") plus paging, which separates it from cats_list_jobs at a glance. It stops short of naming the sibling it substitutes for, so the differentiation is implied by the word "free-text" rather than explicit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to reach for this instead of cats_list_jobs, cats_get_job, or cats_filter_candidates. The only usage signal is the endpoint string and the word "paged," which leaves the agent to infer that free-text matching is the selection criterion.

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