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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful note that results are a 'short preview' versus get_job's full text, but says nothing about pagination behavior despite limit/offset, or rate 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, zero waste, with the scoping purpose front-loaded and the sibling routing in the clause that follows. Every sentence 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?

For a 17-parameter, zero-required search with an output schema present, the description covers domain, usage, the preview-vs-fulltext distinction, and routing to get_job. The remaining gap is pagination/limit semantics, which the schema names but never explains.

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 71%, above the midpoint, so the schema does most of the work. The description gestures at the facet groups (technology, seniority, location, pay, employer) that map to skills, seniority, cities/countries, salary_min and company_slugs, but adds no syntax or combination guidance beyond the schema.

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 freehire's catalogue of IT job postings') and immediately scopes the domain to IT jobs. It also names the sibling get_job and distinguishes this tool as the preview-level search, so an agent can route without opening either 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 for any question about which jobs are open — by technology, seniority, location, pay or employer' gives clear when-to-use context and enumerates the question types it answers. It also routes to get_job for full text, but offers no explicit when-not-to-use or condition for the sibling search_companies.

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