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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the search covers 'current' roles and is sourced from PhysicalAI.jobs, but it does not disclose additional behavioral details like pagination behavior or any limitations beyond what annotations and schema already provide. No contradiction exists.

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?

The description is two concise sentences with no wasted words. The primary action and resource are front-loaded, and the usage guidance is a clear second sentence. Every part 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?

Given the tool has 14 parameters and a high schema coverage of 86%, the description provides enough context: the source of jobs, the search scope, and the intended use case. The output schema is present, so the description need not explain return values. It could be slightly more explicit about how it differs from sibling tools, but it is not incomplete for invoking the tool correctly.

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 high (86%), so the burden on the description is low. The description lists filter dimensions such as keyword, specialty, company, location, remote status, and compensation, which map to query, tags, company, location, remote, and min_salary/currency. However, it adds little meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already cover, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('current robotics, humanoid, embodied AI and Physical AI roles from PhysicalAI.jobs'), and lists the main filter dimensions. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_job or latest_jobs to differentiate when each should be used.

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 usage context: 'Use this when a user wants to discover or shortlist relevant jobs.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool, though it does not state when not to use it or explicitly point to alternatives such as get_job or latest_jobs.

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