Jobero job search

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations by stating 'No auth required,' disclosing that this tool is publicly accessible without credentials. No contradictions with 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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that front-loads the key information: what the tool returns (cost and payment terms) and a critical usage note (no auth). Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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, no output schema, and low complexity, the description is complete for an agent to understand purpose, usage, and the nature of the result. It clearly explains what the tool provides ('costs and how to pay') and that it requires no authentication, covering all necessary context.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description appropriately focuses on what information is returned rather than parameter details, which are irrelevant here.

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 what the tool does: it provides the cost of a Jobero search and payment methods in card and stablecoin terms. This is specific and distinct from sibling tools like get_search_status, register_agent, and start_job_search, which focus on search lifecycle operations.

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 gives clear context that no authentication is required, which guides the agent when this tool can be invoked. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives, but the sibling tools are obviously different in purpose, so the usage context is clear enough.

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 that matched roles and reasons are provided 'once it finishes,' informing the agent of asynchronous result availability. Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, so this is extra context. It does not disclose polling behavior or error cases, but with annotations covering safety, this is adequate.

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 short and efficiently conveys the core purpose, but it is a sentence fragment and could be structured more clearly with an explicit verb. Still, every word earns its place and there is no fluff.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description sufficiently indicates what the response contains: progress and final matched roles with reasons. The schema covers the parameter, and annotations cover the safety profile, leaving only minor gaps like possible empty states.

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 fully describes the only parameter, run_id, including the default behavior when omitted. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what is already in the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 the tool provides search progress and matched roles with reasons once finished. While it lacks an explicit verb, the title 'Check a search' and name 'get_search_status' clarify the action. It distinguishes itself from sibling 'start_job_search' by focusing on status retrieval.

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?

No explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists what it returns; it does not mention that it should be used after starting a job search or contrast with other tools. However, the name and sibling set imply usage for checking an existing search, which qualifies as implied guidance.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses that registration is free and that no free searches are included—useful behavioral context. However, it does not mention side effects like email verification, whether the API key is returned immediately or via email, or any rate limits. It is adequate but not rich.

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 with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a relevant limitation. Every word 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should fully explain what the tool returns and what to expect. It says 'receive an API key' but not how or when. It also doesn't mention that the email is required (though schema does). Given the simple nature of the tool, it is sufficient but leaves some gaps about the registration flow.

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 only 50% (email is described, name is not). The description 'Create an agent identity' does not explicitly explain the name or email parameters beyond the schema. It adds no parameter-specific guidance, failing to compensate for the undocumented 'name' field.

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 'Create an agent identity and receive an API key,' which is a specific verb+resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_pricing and start_job_search by focusing on registration.

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 makes the usage context clear: use this tool when you need to register an agent and obtain an API key. It also provides a useful caveat ('registration includes no free searches'), which sets expectations for follow-up usage. No explicit exclusions are given, but none are necessary for such a distinct operation.

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 reveals key side effects: spending credit, sending emails, requiring payment if no credit, and the x402 PaymentRequired error with USDC payment retry. Annotations only indicate non-read-only and open-world, so the description adds substantial transparency beyond the structured data.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the credit cost and outcome, and no filler. Every sentence adds critical information about cost, behavior, and error recovery.

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 description covers cost, side effects, and error handling, but does not describe the success return value or whether the tool returns a status reference. Since there is no output schema, this is a gap, though the sibling get_search_status may partially compensate.

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 67%, and the description does not add meaningful parameter semantics. It mentions 'profile' and 'CV' generally but does not explain cv_type or the relationship between cfg_email and the API key. It provides almost no value beyond the schema for parameter understanding.

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 runs a full search producing 7 matched roles, each with a tailored CV and cover letter emailed to the account address. This is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_search_status or get_pricing.

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?

It provides clear context: requires an API key, costs one credit, and explains the payment retry flow when credit is insufficient. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the usage context is well defined.

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