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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so safety and external-scope are covered. The description adds real behavioral context on top: filters combine with AND, and no filters yields the whole catalog — a non-obvious default. It stops short of pagination or result-cap behavior, which the results_per_page param covers separately.

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 core action and scope, then filter-combination semantics, then routing to siblings. No filler or restated boilerplate.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained, and the description covers default behavior, filter combination, and alternative tools. It omits result-cap/pagination guidance, but that is documented in the schema, so the gap is minor for a 7-param optional-filter search.

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 per-parameter documentation is already handled (the q facet-vs-title distinction is even duplicated verbatim from the schema). What the description adds beyond the schema is cross-parameter semantics: filters combine with AND, and empty filters return the catalog. That is genuine added value over the 100%-covered baseline of 3.

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+resource ("Search Meta Careers open-job result records") and enumerates the filter facets it accepts. It also names the two sibling tools and what each is for, so an agent can distinguish search from job-detail and list-discovery without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes: 'Use meta_jobs_job for one posting or meta_jobs_list for list discovery,' and notes that omitting filters returns the full open-requisition catalog. When-to-use and the alternative are both stated rather than implied.

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