Ocean of Jobs

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, covering the safety profile. The description adds a summary of returned data (open job counts, new jobs this week, tracking duration, newest jobs, page), which is somewhat redundant with the output schema and does not disclose auth, rate limits, or error 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?

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the resource and lookup keys, then lists the returned data efficiently. It is appropriately sized, though the return-field list is somewhat dense.

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, the description need not explain return values, yet it gives a useful summary. It covers the lookup key and general purpose for a low-complexity, single-parameter tool, though it lacks usage guidance against sibling tools.

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% and the schema already describes the single 'company' parameter with examples (Wix, wix.com). The description restates 'by name or domain' without adding format, validation, or disambiguation details 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?

The description names the specific resource (a company on Ocean of Jobs) and the lookup keys (name or domain), and enumerates what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from the job-oriented siblings get_job and search_jobs, but the resource noun makes the distinction clear.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or exclusions. It simply describes what the tool returns, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result includes verification against the employer's ATS and link ordering, but since an output schema exists this return-content detail is largely redundant.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and scope; the enumeration of returned fields is a bit run-on but 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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly self-sufficient; the only minor gap is that return-value details duplicate the output schema.

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%, so the id format is already documented. The description goes beyond the schema by stating the provenance of the id (from search_jobs or get_company), which is genuinely useful for constructing the call.

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 ('One job on Ocean of Jobs by its id') and names the siblings that supply the id (search_jobs, get_company), so an agent can distinguish it from those tools without inspecting schemas.

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?

It clearly routes the agent by naming where the required id comes from (search_jobs or get_company), which implies this tool is the follow-up step. It lacks an explicit 'do not use this for searching' exclusion, but the context is unambiguous.

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 mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: up to 25 results per call, best-match ordering with a query and newest-first otherwise, total match count, and lifetime/link fields on every job. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 definition is front-loaded with what the tool returns, then organized into a useful "How to search well" list. It is longer than strictly necessary for a tool description, but most sentences contribute concrete operational guidance rather than filler.

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 10-parameter search surface and the existing output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation: it covers the main filter constraint, search strategy, ordering, result limit, and important returned fields. The annotations and output schema carry the rest of the safety and return-shape burden.

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 60%, so the description carries meaningful additional semantics: query words must all match, short title/skill terms work best, and at least one of query/company/city/country should be supplied. It also clarifies country codes and common listing geography, though it leaves some parameters such as offset and salary_min mostly to 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ("Search open jobs on Ocean of Jobs") and immediately explains scope, result ordering, and key return fields. It also distinguishes itself from the detail sibling by instructing the agent to use get_job for full descriptions.

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?

It explicitly states that at least one of query, company, city, or country should be provided, and gives clear search tactics: use short core terms, search once, broaden once if needed, deduplicate by id/apply_url, and open only the strongest candidates with get_job. This is unusually complete when-to-use and how-to-use guidance.

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