Locate Jobs Network Job Search

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the return volume (5-10 jobs), the fields returned, and the coverage boundary. It stops short of mentioning rate limits, freshness, or pagination beyond the 'see more' link.

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 purpose before the scope qualifier, with no filler. The long parenthetical listing of every board name is informative but borders on verbose, keeping it just short of a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is technically optional, and the description nonetheless summarizes what comes back. With 100% parameter coverage, annotations covering the safety profile, and no siblings to disambiguate, nothing an agent needs to call this 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%, so the schema already explains what, limit, where, and remote, including formats and defaults. The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond what the schema provides, which is the expected baseline at full 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search live office and desk jobs') and pins down scope by naming the exact boards covered. The closing exclusion ('Does not cover trades, warehouse, or field jobs') makes the boundary unambiguous even without siblings to compare against.

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 when-to-use context by enumerating the covered job boards and explicitly stating what is out of scope (trades, warehouse, field). There are no sibling tools to route against, so the only missing element would be a named alternative, which doesn't exist here.

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