FunkyJobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety and idempotency are covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by disclosing that the description text is only an excerpt and the full listing plus application path are behind the returned link, but it says nothing about error behavior for an invalid id or any rate limits.

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, both front-loaded and waste-free: the first states the retrieval plus returned fields, the second adds the only extra fact the agent needs (excerpt vs. full listing via link). Nothing is redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return shape, and it does so well by listing title, employer, location, Pensum, optional salary, an excerpt and a link. It is nearly complete; only failure/empty-result behavior is unaddressed.

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 single id parameter is fully documented as 'Die id eines Treffers aus search_jobs'. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, so the schema carries the full burden and the baseline 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Ruft ein einzelnes Stelleninserat von funkyjobs.ch ab') and enumerates the returned fields, which clearly distinguishes it from the plural-listing sibling search_jobs. An agent knows exactly what it fetches 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 word 'einzelnes' (single) implies this is for retrieving one specific listing rather than searching, but the description never explicitly says when to use it versus search_jobs or that the id must come from a prior search. That routing information lives only in the schema, so usage is implied rather than stated.

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-redundant behavior: it returns the 20 newest hits and exposes a more_url when the result set is larger, which is valuable pagination information not present in the 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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then filters then return shape then pagination. Every sentence carries distinct 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?

There is no output schema, yet the description covers return values (title, employer, place, workload, link) and the 20-hit limit with more_url fallback. Combined with the fully documented 7-parameter schema and annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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% and the schema already documents every filter with examples, defaults (radius 10 km, 0 = only the place) and enum values. The description restates the filter set (Stichwort, Ort mit Umkreis, Pensum, Kategorie, Veröffentlichungsdatum) but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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?

Names a specific verb (Sucht) and resource (Stelleninserate) plus the platform funkyjobs.ch and the job types covered, so an agent immediately knows this is a job-listing search rather than a detail fetch. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_job, which by name retrieves a single listing.

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?

Gives clear context for when this applies: searching current listings with the enumerated filters (keyword, place/radius, workload, category, publication date). It does not explicitly name get_job as the follow-up for full details, so routing to the alternative is only implied by the thin per-hit result fields.

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