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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety and openness profile is covered. The description adds that coverage is live postings only, which is useful, but says nothing about pagination behavior, default exclusion of closed postings, or result caps despite 19 parameters that imply these behaviors.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then parenthetically enumerates filters. No boilerplate, no redundancy, no wasted clauses.

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 19-parameter search over an open-world dataset, the description is adequate but thin: it omits mention of closed-posting defaults, salary filtering, sorting, and pagination that the schema carries. With an output schema present, return-format explanation is correctly omitted, but routing guidance against dozens of sibling job tools is missing.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only lists filter categories (title/company/location/department/remote/provider/job-family) at a high level, adding no syntax or value detail beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 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 (Search) and resource (the jobs dataset), and scopes it precisely as 'every live posting crawled from every discovered company ATS board'. This makes the coverage model clear and distinguishes it from per-provider job tools like jobs_greenhouse_board or google_jobs_search.

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 implies usage (broad cross-ATS discovery search) via its stated scope, but never explicitly says when to prefer this over the many sibling job tools such as jobs_company_search or the per-board tools. No exclusions or routing guidance is given.

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