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

Annotations only cover the read-only/idempotent/open-world profile; the description adds substantial behavior the agent could not infer: the 30-day freshness cap, that pay/seniority are pre-parsed rather than prose, and the board's honesty disclosures (countUnavailable when totals aren't knowable, ignoredFilters for filters that could not be honoured, intentFilters for words read as filters, plus spelling suggestions). That is exactly the kind of non-obvious contract detail that prevents misreading results.

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?

It is front-loaded: what it searches, then what it returns, then the one actionable setting. The single dense paragraph is longer than most but nearly every clause carries distinct information; the aside about the 30-day cap and board_stats could be trimmed.

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 24-parameter tool with a full output schema, the description covers the important intangibles (corpus freshness, result shape, filter-fidelity disclosures, error/refusal semantics for ignored filters). It stops short of explaining pagination expectations or how to interpret intentFilters beyond naming it, but nothing critical to a correct call 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 24 parameters, including the nuanced ones (postedAfter vs maxAgeDays, includeUnstatedPay widening). The description adds field-level context about parsed pay and the agentReadyOnly switch, but does not supply meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the 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 names a specific verb+resource ("Search the live job board") and goes further than the title by characterizing the corpus (postings pulled directly from employers' hiring systems, 30-day freshness cap) and the return type (compact job cards). It partially differentiates from siblings by pointing at board_stats for live totals, but never distinguishes itself from the closely-named search, get_jobs, or debug_search tools.

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?

There is one concrete usage rule — "Set agentReadyOnly=true to see only jobs the apply agent can submit to directly" — and an implied routing hint that totals live in board_stats. However, with 15 sibling tools including search and get_jobs, the description gives no explicit when-to-use/ when-not guidance against those alternatives.

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