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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the 10-row limit, equivalence of board/ranking to unkeyed search_jobs, the semantics of each result's id (usable by fetch and other tools) and url (employer apply page vs. site posting page), and that disclosures ride alongside results. This is rich behavioral disclosure, not a restatement of annotations.

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?

Four dense sentences, all front-loaded with the alias identity and shape before the result-semantics details. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler, though the 'disclosures ride beside the results' clause is a bit compressed. Slightly verbose but appropriately sized for the alias relationship it must explain.

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 single-parameter read-only tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers the invocation contract well: alias relationship, result semantics, result limit, and routing guidance. The only under-specified element is what 'disclosures ride beside the results' actually refers to; auth and rate-limit context are also absent but appear to be handled at the connector level given the sibling set.

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% and the query parameter's schema description already explains the accepted free text ('title, skills, a place, exclusions with a leading minus'). The description reinforces that query is the only parameter but adds little semantic detail about the parameter itself — the 'no filters here' contrast mostly serves usage guidance rather than param semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource (search over jobs via an alias of search_jobs), defines the exact I/O shape, and explicitly distinguishes itself from its richer sibling 'search_jobs which takes every filter.' An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the 14 siblings without opening the 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?

The description names the exact caller ('ChatGPT's deep-research and company-knowledge connectors'), states the limiting condition ('one query string in'), and gives an explicit alternative with the selection rule: 'Any other client should call search_jobs, which takes every filter.' When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit.

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