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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure but falls short. It hints at behavioral aspects by mentioning 'login_required' and 'anti_bot_seen' for sourced jobs, and 'apply_mode' values that indicate automation compatibility (e.g., candidate_bot_ok). However, it does not explain the implications for authentication, rate limits, or what happens when searching with different source parameters. For a tool with no annotations, this is insufficient to inform the agent about critical behaviors like whether it requires login or has usage restrictions.

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 long sentence that is dense and front-loaded with technical terms, which hinders readability. It efficiently covers many concepts in minimal space, but the lack of structure (e.g., breaking into bullet points or shorter sentences) makes it less accessible. While every part seems intended to earn its place by conveying specific details, the overall density reduces clarity and could benefit from better organization to highlight key points.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It focuses heavily on the 'source' parameter and return-related fields like 'direct_to' and 'apply_mode', but neglects to explain the other parameters or provide basic usage context. There is no mention of what the tool returns (e.g., list of jobs), error handling, or pagination, leaving the agent without a full understanding of how to invoke it correctly. The lack of output schema means the description should compensate, but it does not adequately do so.

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 0%, meaning the input schema provides no semantic descriptions for any of the 6 parameters (q, near, skills, source, pay_min, work_type). The description only briefly touches on the 'source' parameter by defining its enum values and ranking behavior, but completely omits explanations for the other 5 parameters. It does not clarify what 'q' stands for (likely query or keywords), what format 'near' expects (e.g., suburb or postcode), how 'skills' should be structured, or what 'pay_min' and 'work_type' represent. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding, requiring the agent to guess their purposes.

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 implies search functionality through the name 'search_jobs' and usage of the word 'Search' at the start, but it fails to clearly state the primary purpose in a straightforward manner. It jumps into technical details about sourced results and apply modes without first establishing what the tool fundamentally does, such as 'Search for job listings based on various criteria like keywords and location.' The initial phrase 'Search live Australian jobs' is promising but is immediately overshadowed by complex jargon, making the core purpose vague and difficult to parse quickly.

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 no explicit guidance on when or why to use this tool compared to alternatives. It mentions source parameters but doesn't explain scenarios such as 'Use this tool to find jobs matching your skills' or 'For job applications, use the apply tool instead.' There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools like 'apply' or 'list_bot_applicable_jobs' from the sibling list, leaving the agent without direction on appropriate usage contexts.

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