דרושים - עבודות

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the payload contents (description, requirements, application link), but says nothing about behavior for an invalid or unknown job_id, or whether the application link is direct versus redirect-based.

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 with no filler, front-loading the verb and resource before the returned fields. Nothing redundant, though there is little structure beyond the one clause.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description does the important work: it tells the agent what data comes back. Remaining gaps (error behavior on a bad ID, whether the link is direct or a redirect) are minor relative to the tool's simplicity and rich annotations.

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?

Only one parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('The job ID (short ID or UUID)'), so the schema carries the semantics. The description never mentions the job_id or that both short IDs and UUIDs are accepted, adding nothing beyond the structured field. 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?

States a specific verb ('Get full details') and resource ('a specific job listing on DrushimAvodot'), and enumerates the fields returned (description, requirements, application link). It implicitly contrasts with search_jobs by emphasizing a single specific listing, but never names the sibling or states the search-then-fetch relationship explicitly.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternatives named. The phrase 'a specific job listing' implies this is the follow-up to search_jobs when an agent already has an ID, but that inference is left entirely to the caller.

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, idempotentHint and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value by naming the concrete payload (active job count, events, experts, platform URL), which matters because there is no output schema. It does not mention freshness or caching of the statistics, a minor gap.

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 short sentences, purpose first, return contents second. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema, and every clause carries information.

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 zero-param read-only tool with no output schema, listing the returned fields makes the definition complete enough to call correctly. The only missing element is any note on whether the statistics are live or cached.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a parameterless call by describing a single fixed payload rather than any filtering options.

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 (Get) and resource (information and statistics about the DrushimAvodot platform), then enumerates what comes back. It is clearly distinguished from the search_* siblings, which all take criteria and return collections, whereas this returns platform-level metadata.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer this is the tool to call for platform-level facts, and that the search_* siblings handle item lookups. However, the description never explicitly says when to prefer this over the siblings or that it takes no filters.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered without the description. However, the description adds nothing beyond that: no result limits, pagination, ranking behavior, or indication of what a search returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and zero filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves it with nothing to say about behavior or scope.

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, fully optional, three-parameter search tool with complete schema descriptions, full annotations, and no output schema, the definition covers what is needed to invoke it correctly. Return-value behavior is not required of the description here.

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%, with query, is_free, and category each documented, so baseline 3 applies. The description contributes no additional semantics such as matching behavior, multi-word handling, or how category values are expected to be formed.

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 a specific verb (Search) and resource (professional courses and training programs), and the resource noun distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs, search_events, and search_experts. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, but the domain is unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the resource noun: an agent can infer this tool is for courses rather than jobs or events. There is no stated exclusion, no guidance on when to prefer a sibling tool, and no prerequisites described.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful domain scope ('upcoming professional events' on DrushimAvodot) but does not describe result ordering, pagination, or response shape.

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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It identifies the action and resource immediately.

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 search tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is largely complete. The main missing piece is sibling differentiation and any note about result limits or default behavior.

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%, with all three parameters (is_free, keywords, location) documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides, so 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (professional events, webinars, workshops, conferences) on a named platform. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from sibling search tools like search_courses or search_experts.

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 guidance on when to use this instead of search_courses or search_experts, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer selection from the resource noun alone.

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 closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds no behavioral context of its own — nothing about how matching works (substring vs exact vs Hebrew/English synonyms), result size, or ordering. It restates purpose rather than disclosing behavior.

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 well-formed sentence with the entity and the filter front-loaded; nothing is wasted. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, which is penalized under other dimensions rather than this one.

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 one-optional-parameter read-only search with rich annotations and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves a meaningful gap: whether the filter is optional and how it matches values, which directly affects how an agent should call it.

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 parameter already carries its meaning plus Hebrew/English examples, so the baseline is 3. The description's "by specialization" merely echoes the parameter name and adds no matching semantics beyond the schema.

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 ("find") and a specific resource ("career experts, consultants, and coaches on DrushimAvodot"), which cleanly separates it from the sibling search_jobs/search_courses/search_events tools by entity type. It stops short of explicitly naming those siblings or the boundary between them.

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?

Usage is implied only: query this when you want experts filtered by a specialization. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, and notably no mention of what happens when the optional specialization is omitted (the schema shows 0 required params, so an unfiltered search is possible but undocumented).

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 establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description's job is additive context — which it provides: real-time results, direct application links, and Hebrew/English query support. It omits result volume or pagination behavior, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the verb, resource, and platform identity, followed by the two facts an agent most needs (real-time results with apply links, bilingual queries). Nothing is wasted.

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, the description correctly discloses the return character (real-time listings with direct application links) and language support. Minor gap: no indication of result count, ranking, or pagination for what is an open-ended search.

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 documents all five parameters with examples. The description adds only the cross-cutting note that both Hebrew and English queries are supported, which is marginal beyond the schema's own bilingual examples.

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 ('Search') and a precisely scoped resource ('active job listings on DrushimAvodot'), and the resource noun alone distinguishes it from siblings search_courses, search_events, and search_experts. No ambiguity about what it returns.

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?

Usage is only implied by the search semantics; there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus get_job_details (to drill into a listing) or the other search_* tools, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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