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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive context beyond that: Beta/plan gating with HTTP 403, per-result credit cost, and the POST endpoint. These auth, cost, and error details are exactly the kind of behavioral disclosures that help an agent call the tool correctly.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and query modes, followed by critical operational notes in compact sentences. Every clause earns its place with no filler or repetition.

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?

Covers dataset scope, query modes, access gating, cost, and endpoint, which is substantial for a multi-mode search tool with no output schema. It stops short of explaining return-field structure or whether sql and query are mutually exclusive, leaving minor gaps.

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% and the schema already documents sql, query, size, pretty, and scroll_token, including an Elasticsearch query example. The description mentions the Elasticsearch-or-SQL choice but adds no syntax, defaults, or format details beyond the schema, so the 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 (Search) and resource (PDL's Job Posting Dataset), plus the two accepted query modes. The job-postings focus differentiates it from sibling person/company search tools without needing to name them.

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?

Provides clear operational context (Beta, plan access with HTTP 403, 1 credit per posting) that shapes when it can be used. It does not, however, name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use this one.

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