search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses a key precondition (Workflow module dependency), a procedural step (call get_enabled_modules first), and the return behavior (paginated results). It lacks detail on auth or exact pagination mechanics, but adds substantial context beyond the schema.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the search purpose and terminology mapping, followed by filters and the module precondition. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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 output schema, the description usefully notes paginated results and the module dependency for CB orgs. For a 7-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, this is nearly complete; only explicit pagination defaults/mechanics are left implicit.

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 seven parameters are already documented in the schema. The description restates the filterable fields (name, status, tags, customer) without adding syntax, formats, or enum values beyond what the schema provides. 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 (Search) and resource (jobs), and immediately disambiguates the resource by noting it appears as 'Projects' for self-service businesses and 'Engagements' for accounting firms. This distinguishes it from get_job and the many other search_* siblings.

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?

Explains what the tool can filter by (customer, status, name, tags) and gives a precondition: it requires the Workflow module and the agent should call get_enabled_modules first for CB orgs. It doesn't name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the usage context is clear.

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