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

Annotations already disclose readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds useful behavioral context about the data source being public, the optional live-jobs restriction, and the current-hiring angle. No contradiction with annotations.

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, front-loaded with the action and scope. Every phrase earns its place and there is no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

For a low-complexity, read-only search tool with no required parameters and an output schema, the description gives enough orientation to select and invoke it. Minor gaps remain around query matching and pagination semantics, but they are not blocking.

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 only 25%, and the description does not compensate. It implies query and hiring_only semantics but leaves limit, cursor, and exactly what query matches undocumented. With low schema coverage, this is a meaningful gap.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Search public PhysicalAI.jobs company profiles.' It also differentiates from the job-focused siblings by targeting companies, and clarifies the domain as robotics, humanoid, and embodied AI companies.

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?

The description gives explicit context: 'Use this for questions about robotics, humanoid or embodied AI companies and who is hiring.' It doesn't name sibling alternatives or say when not to use the tool, but the use-case guidance is clear enough for selection.

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