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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds genuinely new behavior: a hard cap of 20 results and that the response is a lightweight projection (id, title, URL) rather than full listings. It says nothing about pagination or ordering, which is a modest remaining gap.

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?

Two sentences plus examples; scope, return shape, and the next-step handoff are all front-loaded with no filler. Every clause earns its place.

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 an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description covers only what the agent still needs: result cap, returned fields, and the fetch handoff. The one real omission is disambiguation from the search_jobs sibling, which matters given the overlapping names.

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% but the schema only says "Search query." The description compensates by showing that natural-language free-text queries are supported, with two concrete phrasings ("remote senior product designer fintech", "UX researcher London"). Those examples teach query style rather than merely restating the parameter.

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), resource (UX & product-design job listings), and the source domain jobs.uxjobs.io, which is concrete and identifiable. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling search_jobs, leaving the agent to guess which search tool is intended when both are present.

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?

"pass an id to fetch for the full listing" explicitly routes the agent onward to the fetch sibling once an id is obtained. What is missing is a condition distinguishing this tool from search_jobs, so the when-to-use guidance is clear for the fetch handoff but silent on the more dangerous ambiguity.

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