jobs-search-multi

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'V1 Jobs' reveals nothing about whether this is a read operation, what it queries, how the url and maxTimeout parameters behave, or what the response looks like. Nothing is disclosed beyond the name.

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?

While short, this is under-specification rather than conciseness. Every sentence should earn its place, but here there are no sentences of substance at all - a version tag is not useful information for an agent.

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 2-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot determine what the tool does, what inputs mean, what it returns, or when to select it over its three siblings.

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% and the description adds no parameter information. The two parameters (url, maxTimeout) are completely undocumented in both schema and description, so an agent has no idea what format url should take or what maxTimeout controls.

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 'V1 Jobs' is a tautology that restates the name with a version label. It provides no verb, no resource explanation, and no distinction from siblings like jobs_indeed, jobs_linkedin, and jobs_multi, leaving the agent unable to determine what this tool actually does.

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?

There is zero guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description gives no context about whether this is a generic aggregator, a specific source, or how it differs from jobs_multi, jobs_indeed, or jobs_linkedin.

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses nothing about side effects, authentication, rate limits, output format, or error behavior. The phrase 'V1 Jobs Indeed' is essentially a label and provides no behavioral information beyond the tool's name.

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 short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It contains no substantive content that helps an agent understand or invoke the tool, so it does not earn its place.

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 four unannotated parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a meaningful description is essential. This description provides none of the necessary context, leaving the agent without sufficient information to call the tool correctly.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for any of the four parameters: query, country, language, or maxTimeout. Since the schema itself contains only names and types with no descriptions, the description must compensate but does not.

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 'V1 Jobs Indeed' essentially restates the tool name with a version prefix and does not state a specific action or resource. It identifies the Indeed platform but not what the tool does with jobs, and it does not differentiate it from siblings like jobs_linkedin or jobs_multi.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools jobs, jobs_linkedin, or jobs_multi. The description implies a connection to Indeed only by its name, which is not sufficient for an agent to select it confidently.

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?

No annotations are provided, and the description gives no behavioral details: no indication of read-only vs. side effects, no auth or rate-limit notes, no return behavior. The description carries the full burden and completely fails to disclose anything beyond a static label.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. A single three-word phrase provides no structure or front-loaded information. It is not concise in a meaningful way; it simply omits all necessary content.

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 tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and ambiguous sibling relationships, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot correctly invoke or select this tool based solely on this definition.

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% and no parameter descriptions exist in the schema or the tool description. The four parameters (query, country, language, maxTimeout) have names only, with no explanation of format, defaults, or expected values. The description adds zero semantic value.

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 'V1 Jobs Linkedin' only restates the tool name and suggests a domain (LinkedIn jobs), but does not specify a verb or action. It fails to distinguish the tool from siblings like jobs_indeed or jobs_multi, leaving the agent to infer the actual purpose from the tool name alone.

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 whatsoever about when to use this tool instead of alternatives. The sibling tools (jobs, jobs_indeed, jobs_multi) are not mentioned, and no context or condition is provided, so the agent has no basis for tool selection.

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'V1 Jobs Multi'. It does not explain that this likely aggregates results across multiple sites, whether it performs network calls, or what side effects or limitations exist.

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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It front-loads nothing useful and every word ('V1', 'Jobs', 'Multi') is either a version marker or a restatement of the tool name.

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 tool with 5 undocumented parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and three siblings, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the tool does, what inputs mean, what it returns, or how it differs from jobs, jobs_indeed, and jobs_linkedin.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it provides no parameter information at all. The schema itself has bare names like 'query', 'sites', 'country', 'location', and 'resultsWanted' with no descriptions, leaving the agent to guess formats, defaults, and semantics.

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 'V1 Jobs Multi' is essentially a version label, not a statement of what the tool does. It names the resource ('jobs') and hints at multi-site aggregation, but there is no verb or behavior described, and it does not distinguish it from siblings like jobs, jobs_indeed, or jobs_linkedin.

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 is provided about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The name suggests it searches multiple job sites, but the description never states this or gives conditions for choosing it over jobs_indeed or jobs_linkedin.

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