Christian Tech Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety burden is light. The description adds real context beyond them: the returned description is sanitized and capped at 8,000 characters, and a link to the job page is included, which tells the agent what it will actually get and that long descriptions may be truncated.

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 the identification and the payload characteristics front-loaded in that order. No filler, no redundancy with the title.

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 tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the essentials plus the truncation/link behavior. It stops short of mentioning behavior for a missing or stale id, which is the only notable omission at this complexity.

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 explains that the id comes from a search_jobs result and that the trailing number works alone. The description only restates 'by its id', adding no format or derivation detail beyond the schema. 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 and resource: 'Returns one current Christian Tech Jobs job by its id.' The word 'one' plus 'by its id' distinguishes it from the list-style sibling search_jobs without the agent needing to open 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 singular 'one ... job by its id' implies this is the detail-lookup companion to a search, but the description never names search_jobs as the way to obtain an id, nor states any when-not condition. Routing guidance is left implicit and only appears in the schema's parameter text.

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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered structurally. The description adds one piece of behavioral value beyond that: results include per-category listing counts, not just names. It says nothing about ordering, freshness of counts, or whether empty categories are included.

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 filler; the resource and the payload content are both stated immediately. 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?

With an output schema present and zero input parameters, the description only needs to convey purpose and payload shape, which it does. Minor omissions like ordering of categories or handling of zero-listing categories are low-risk for a simple read-only list tool.

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 there is no parameter semantics to explain and the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies no filtering or paging inputs are needed.

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 names a specific verb (Lists) and resource (job categories) scoped to a named site, Christian Tech Jobs, and adds what each entry contains (current listing counts). It is unambiguous against the siblings get_job and search_jobs, though it does not explicitly state the contrast.

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: an agent can infer this is a discovery/browse step before calling search_jobs or get_job, but the description never says when to use it or when another tool is preferable. No prerequisites or exclusions are 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 readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered elsewhere. The description adds that results are 'current' listings, that each carries a link back to the site, and that remote/location are matched against a Remote location string — helpful context but no mention of paging limits or the total count behavior. It also duplicates the 'Christian Tech Jobs' phrase twice without new information.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted clauses, and the important 'returns each job with a link' detail is included. The repeated site name is slightly redundant but not harmful.

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 and the input schema is fully documented, so the description does not need to explain returns or parameter formats. What remains is adequate for a filtered search: scope, filters, and the link back to the source are all present, though guidance on choosing this over its siblings is absent.

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 100%, with each parameter fully documented including aliasing, case-insensitivity, error behavior for bad categories, and paging semantics. The description only restates the filter dimensions the schema already explains in more depth, so the 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?

The description names a specific verb (Searches) and resource (current job listings on Christian Tech Jobs) and enumerates the filter dimensions (keyword, category, remote, location). It does not differentiate itself from the siblings get_job or list_categories, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.

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 by the word 'Searches' and the filter list, so an agent can infer this is the discovery tool versus get_job for a single record. However, there is no explicit 'use this when' statement, no mention of when to prefer list_categories for browsing categories, and no stated exclusions.

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