create_job_hunt

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that a job hunt is needed for other operations, but doesn't describe what happens after creation (e.g., whether it's immediately active, how it's stored, if there are limits on concurrent hunts, or what the return value looks like). For a creation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's 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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose clearly, and the second provides important usage context. There's no wasted verbiage, and the information is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what happens after creation, what data is returned, whether there are side effects (like credit consumption mentioned in the schema's autoMode parameter), or how the created hunt integrates with the system. The schema handles parameter documentation well, but the description should provide more behavioral context.

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 schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal value beyond what's in the schema, only mentioning that a job hunt defines criteria 'based on titles, locations, skills, salary, etc.' This doesn't provide additional semantic context beyond the comprehensive schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Create a new job hunt to start tracking and applying to jobs.' It specifies the verb ('create') and resource ('job hunt'), and explains that a job hunt defines search criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'update_job_hunt' or 'list_job_hunts' beyond mentioning that it's needed for 'match_jobs' and 'add_job_to_applications'.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: 'You need at least one job hunt to use match_jobs or add_job_to_applications.' This establishes a prerequisite relationship with other tools. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., vs. updating an existing hunt) or name specific alternatives among siblings.

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