Jobbi Agent Gigs

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 genuinely useful context beyond them: data freshness (scraped daily), source scale (400+ career sites), and the shape of each result including that salary is only present 'when known'.

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 sentences, no filler. Corpus description comes first, then filters, then return shape — the ordering matches how an agent decides and calls.

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, so the brief return-field mention is a bonus rather than a requirement. With annotations covering safety and the schema covering parameters, the definition is nearly complete; only explicit routing guidance against the sibling job tools is missing.

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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description mirrors the filter set (keywords, location, remote) without adding syntax, matching rules, or defaults beyond what the schema states, 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 (Jobbi's index of ~30,000 open tech jobs), with provenance detail that makes the corpus unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_gigs, so an agent still has to infer which one to pick.

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 filter list (keywords, location text, remote) implies the intended search-style usage, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusions, and no reference to list_gigs or get_gig as alternatives. Usage is inferable rather than 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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact, that the returned record is the full normalized form (as opposed to a list summary), but says nothing about lookup failure behavior. That is an acceptable but modest addition over the 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the identity format is stated up front and the one extra clause about the full normalized record earns its place by describing output 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?

With an output schema present, return-value detail need not be explained, and the single fully documented parameter plus rich annotations mean the agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly. Only the missing when-to-use guidance keeps this from being complete.

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 id parameter, its source:nativeId format and its provenance from list_gigs are all already documented in the schema. The description only restates the same format string, adding no new syntax or constraint, 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?

The description gives a specific verb ("Fetch") and resource ("a single gig") plus the identity format, and the word "single" implicitly contrasts with the list_gigs sibling. It stops short of naming an alternative or stating what makes this retrieval different from find_jobs, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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: the agent must infer it should call this when it already holds a Jobbi id rather than a query. There is no statement of when to prefer find_jobs or list_gigs, and no prerequisites or failure conditions are given.

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 destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: results are sorted newest first and each item carries reward, acceptance method, payout grade and a source link.

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 tightly packed sentences: what it is and where data comes from first, then filtering, then return shape and ordering. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 annotations covering safety, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it usefully summarizes them anyway. The only real gap is the absence of any disambiguation against the closely named find_jobs sibling.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, including the lane enum semantics and the source example keys. The description only restates the filter dimensions at a high level without adding format or default detail, 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List open, paid gigs that AI agents can do') plus the aggregation scope ('from every public agent bounty/task board'). This is clear, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling find_jobs, which appears to overlap heavily.

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 lists the available filters, which implies how to narrow results, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing between this tool, find_jobs, and list_sources. The only routing hint ('See list_sources') lives in the schema, not the description.

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 (openWorldHint=false), which is the full safety profile for this call. The description adds only the payload fields, which the output schema already covers, so it contributes limited behavioral context beyond the structured metadata.

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 zero filler; the verb and resource lead and the returned fields follow 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?

With annotations covering safety, an output schema covering the return shape, and zero parameters, the description covers what an agent needs. It would be complete at 5 only if it hinted at ordering or scale of the board list.

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 no parameters, so there are no argument semantics to document; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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?

Specific verb+resource: 'List the boards Jobbi indexes,' and it names what each entry carries (gig counts, home URLs, payout grades). The resource ('boards/sources') is clearly distinct from the gig-oriented siblings (find_jobs, get_gig, list_gigs), though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with 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?

No when-to-use statement, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives or when not to call it. The zero-parameter nature makes the intent somewhat self-evident, but the description itself provides no routing guidance.

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