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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: query tokens like place names and heltid/deltid/sommerjobb are silently interpreted as filters, and only active listings are searched. It stops short of stating result limits or pagination.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler, front-loaded with the core capability and examples before the routing hint. 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 one-parameter search tool with an output schema, this covers scope, query interpretation, return shape and the follow-up call. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly 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 the single 'query' parameter is already documented (including Norwegian/English). The description goes beyond that by explaining how the query string is parsed — place names and employment-type words act as filters — which is semantics the schema does not carry.

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+scope: free-text search over active job listings in Norway, with concrete query examples ('kokk i Bergen'). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling search_jobs, which offers the same thing with explicit filters.

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?

Gives the full workflow: search to get ids, then use fetch with the id for the full ad. It also names the alternative (search_jobs) and the condition that selects it (explicit filters instead of free text), so the agent can route without inference.

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