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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful output trait that results include open-posting counts, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result size limits.

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, no filler, with the capability statement and the routing rule in that order. Every clause carries information.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and purpose plus routing are covered. The one gap is paging semantics for limit/offset, which neither the schema nor the description addresses.

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 only 50%: query and countries are documented in the schema, while limit and offset carry no description anywhere. The phrase "by name or by where they hire" maps loosely onto query and countries but adds no format or syntax detail, so the undocumented paging params are not compensated for.

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 (Find) and resource (employers) plus the two lookup axes (name, hiring location) and the returned posting counts. An agent can distinguish it from search_jobs and get_company without opening any schema.

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?

"Use when the question is about a company rather than about a role" gives a clear selection rule against search_jobs, but it never names get_company, the natural alternative for a single known employer, so the when-not case is left to inference.

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