Jobero job search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds valuable behavioral context: no authentication is required, and it specifies the output will cover card and stablecoin terms.

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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose ('What a Jobero search costs') and adds one key qualifier. No wasted words.

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 no parameters and an output schema available, the description sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and key usage context. Nothing critical 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?

The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics.

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 provides cost and payment details for a Jobero search, distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_search_status or quick_job_search.

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 clearly implies when to use it (to understand pricing and payment options), and notes 'No auth required' as a usage condition. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but siblings are obviously different in function.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it reports progress while a search is ongoing and matched roles with reasons once complete. This clarifies the two-phase behavior, which is not deducible from the annotations. It does not describe edge cases like error handling or timeouts, but it adds meaningful transparency.

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 extremely brief, but it is not a complete sentence ('Progress of a search, and the matched roles...'). It front-loads the core purpose and uses no unnecessary words. However, the fragmentary grammar and lack of a clear verb slightly reduce clarity, so it is concise but not perfectly structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 optional parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema), the description adequately conveys the tool's function. Annotations cover read-only and idempotent behavior, and the output schema likely documents return details. The main missing context is a clearer statement of when to call it, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 for parameters is 100%; the run_id parameter is fully described in the schema including that it is optional and can be omitted for the most recent run. The description text itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond that, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 title 'Check a search' and description 'Progress of a search, and the matched roles with the reason each was picked once it finishes' clearly identify a resource (search) and action (check/status). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like start_job_search and quick_job_search by focusing on examining an existing search's progress and results rather than initiating one.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that it should be called after start_job_search or quick_job_search, nor does it exclude other scenarios. The only usage context comes from the schema's parameter description, not from the description itself.

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

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false), the description discloses key behaviors: the $2.50 USDC cost, the x402 PaymentRequired response when credit is insufficient, and the exact retry mechanism via _meta["x402/payment"]. This is meaningful behavioral context not present in the structured metadata.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, then cost, usage alternatives, and payment retry behavior. There is no filler or redundant repetition of schema fields; every sentence adds distinct value.

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?

Given that an output schema exists and the input schema documents the 4 parameters thoroughly, the description covers the remaining contextual needs: cost, speed, choice between tools, and payment failure handling. It is complete for this complexity level.

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%, and the schema already provides detailed parameter descriptions for profile, cv_json, cv_base64, and cv_type. The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond referring to 'a profile', so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 returns 'the single best current role for a profile, with a tailored CV and cover letter' – a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool start_job_search by contrasting the single result with a 7-option shortlist.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is given: 'Use this when you want one answer fast; use start_job_search when you want a shortlist of 7 to choose from.' It also provides error-handling instructions for the payment-required case, including how to retry with the signed payment.

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

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

Annotations are all false, providing minimal safety or mutation context. The description adds useful behavioral information: 'Registration is free and includes no free searches,' and that it creates an identity and returns an API key. Yet it does not disclose potential caveats like rate limits, key activation, or the relationship between the key and later searches.

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 sentences long, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a relevant caveat. Every word earns its place—no filler or repetition.

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 simple registration tool with an output schema and full parameter coverage, the description covers the essentials: what it creates, what it returns, and cost-related behavior. It does not need to explain output format given the output schema. A minor gap is the lack of explicit guidance on how the API key integrates with sibling tools, but this is not critical.

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% with descriptive parameter details (email must be job seeker's own address, must match cfg_email later). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so it does not improve on the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and identifies the resource ('agent identity and receive an API key'). It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like search and pricing tools, and the extra detail about free registration and no free searches reinforces its unique purpose.

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 context is clear: this tool is for registering to get an API key, distinct from the search and pricing siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites beyond the schema's email constraint.

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

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond the annotations: it consumes a credit, emails PDFs, requires an API key, and returns an x402 PaymentRequired when no credit is left, with a retry payment mechanism. This complements the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true) and explains side effects clearly.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action ('Spend one credit to run a full search'), and efficiently conveys cost, output, delivery method, authentication, and error handling. Every phrase contributes information, with no filler.

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 tool with four parameters (including a complex nested profile object) and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, cost, delivery, API key requirement, and payment retry. It doesn't detail the response structure but defers to get_search_status, which is acceptable. The description is complete enough for an agent to use the tool correctly in most scenarios.

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?

The schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (cv_json, cv_type, profile, cv_base64), covering semantics thoroughly. The description adds a small amount of value by mentioning '7 roles matched to the profile' and 'tailored CV and cover letter,' which ties the parameters to expected outcomes, but this is marginal. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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's function: 'run a full search: 7 roles matched to the profile, each with a tailored CV and cover letter.' It uses a specific verb ('run') and identifies the resource (profile, roles). It doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like quick_job_search, but the phrase 'full search' hints at differentiation.

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 provides context on when to use the tool: it requires one credit and an API key, and it describes the payment flow when credits are exhausted. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like quick_job_search or get_search_status. The guidance is implied through the 'full search' wording but not directly stated.

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