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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so the safety profile needs no description support. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: results come back as a page of compact records, ordered newest-first or by keyword relevance when a query is present, with a total match count. It stops short of describing rate limits or how paging interacts with total count, so it is not a 5.

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?

Three sentences: purpose first, then supported filters, then return shape and ordering. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated, which is a well front-loaded structure for a 13-parameter tool.

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 13 optional parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description need not enumerate parameters or return fields — and it correctly doesn't. It covers corpus, filter surface, and ordering/total-count semantics. The only material omission is disambiguation from the other search-adjacent siblings (search, companies_hiring, get_job).

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 every parameter — including enums, defaults, and caveats like the ~8% salary-posting rate — is already fully documented in the schema. The description only restates the filter categories (salary, recency) at a higher level and adds no syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 ("Search live UX, product-design... roles on jobs.uxjobs.io") with the domain named explicitly, so an agent knows exactly what corpus this queries. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_job or salary_snapshot, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Usage is implied by the filter list (keyword, location, remote, seniority, discipline, company, salary, recency) — an agent can infer "use this to find matching roles." There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no statement of when a sibling such as get_job should be preferred for a single posting, and no exclusions.

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