Marketing Manager Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds value by calling the data 'public' (no credential or access-scoping concern) and by naming the returned metrics, which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss rate limits or payload size, but these are minor here.

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, zero filler, with the content overview first and the parameter default second. Every clause earns its place and nothing is buried.

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 two-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the definition covers what is returned, the default/omitted-parameter behavior, and the public-data scope. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly; remaining detail lives in the parameter enum.

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 only 50%, so the description must carry weight. It supplies the key behavioral fact the enum cannot: that omitting 'report' switches the tool from single-report fetch to list-all mode. It adds nothing about 'user_goal', though that parameter is fully self-documented in 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 ('Get') and a well-scoped resource ('public hiring research trackers') and enumerates the payload contents (sample sizes, monthly trends, source URLs), which tells an agent exactly what it will receive. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_site_context or search_marketing_jobs, but the resource domain is distinct enough that confusion is unlikely.

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?

'Omit report to list all trackers' gives a concrete rule for the parameterless case and implicitly tells the agent to pass a report value for a single tracker. There is no statement of when-not to use it or which sibling to prefer, so it falls short of a full routing directive.

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, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the content scope; it says nothing about response size, whether 'recent jobs' is paginated or limited, or what 'citation guidance' concretely contains.

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 payload contents are listed compactly. Slightly noun-list-heavy but no sentence 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 parameters, no nested objects and no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it does name the four return components. Minor gap: no indication of the size or structure of 'recent jobs', which matters for planning.

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, and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-argument tool.

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?

Specific verb ('Get') plus a clearly named resource and an enumeration of what it returns (site context, taxonomy, recent jobs, citation guidance). It reads distinctly from the sibling search_marketing_jobs, though the differentiation is by content listing rather than an explicit statement.

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 guidance or mention of alternatives like search_marketing_jobs or get_research_trackers. The inclusion of 'context' and 'citation guidance' implies an onboarding/bootstrap role, but the agent must infer that.

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 covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: results are restricted to active English manager-level listings, and 'remote' is only a listing flag rather than proof of remote eligibility. That's genuine value beyond the structured fields.

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 with zero filler. The scope constraint is front-loaded and the caveat follows 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 9-parameter search tool with 33% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers scope and the 'remote' caveat but says nothing about the free-text query, skill, salary, level, or limit/pagination behavior. Adequate as a starting point, but an agent could still misuse several filters.

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?

With only 33% schema coverage across 9 parameters, the description must compensate, and it does explain two ambiguous points: 'remote' is a listing flag (not an eligibility filter) and results are implicitly English/manager-level. It still leaves 'q', 'skill', 'salary', and 'limit' semantics entirely to an under-documented 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 (Search) plus a tightly qualified resource: active, English, marketing manager-level jobs. That scope is far more informative than the tool name alone. It doesn't differentiate from siblings, but get_research_trackers and get_site_context are unrelated tools, so the omission is minor.

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 second sentence is a real usage caution: treat 'remote' as a listing flag and verify location eligibility before recommending a role. However, there is no guidance on when to use this tool versus another, nor on how to combine filters or when to omit them.

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