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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden. It discloses that all filters are optional, which is useful, and 'search' implies a safe read operation. However, it does not explain return format, pagination, sorting, or any other behavioral traits, leaving the agent partially in the dark about what to expect.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and a brief note on optionality. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain what a search returns and how to use filters effectively. It only says 'Search ... listings' without describing result structure, default limit behavior, or filter combinations. Given five parameters (three with sparse schema info), this is incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly without guesswork.

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 40%, with query and remote having descriptions while limit, region, and category lack semantic explanations. The tool description merely states 'All filters optional,' which does not describe parameter meaning or usage. For enums like region and category, the description offers no clarification, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Search open Alaska government, legislative, campaign, policy, municipal, federal, and nonprofit job listings,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. This distinguishes it from sibling 'get' tools like get_job or get_salary_data, which target specific records or stats.

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 by saying 'Search open ... job listings,' but it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job for a specific job or get_salary_data for compensation data. The note 'All filters optional' offers some context but no direct when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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