list_stored_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that this performs no board calls, operates only on the local database, and returns job_ids, titles, and requirements status. This is effective transparency for a read-oriented search tool, though it does not mention ordering or result limits.

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 compact and front-loaded with the most important distinction: local database, no board calls. Every sentence earns its place, and the follow-up routing is included without padding.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description conveys the return fields and delegates detail retrieval clearly. It is complete enough for an agent to select and call the tool, though details like default limit and exact matching behavior are left to the schema defaults.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for parameter meaning. It meaningfully explains query as title keyword, source as source board, days_old as freshness, plus company and location. Only limit is not semantically elaborated, but its default makes it low-risk.

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 searches the LOCAL job database, establishes the resource and an explicit verb, and differentiates itself from board-based calls. It also distinguishes follow-up detail retrieval into get_job / fetch_job_description, making its role among siblings obvious.

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 says to use this INSTEAD of Bash/sqlite for filtering by company, title, location, board source, or freshness, which is strong guidance. It also routes detail retrieval to get_job / fetch_job_description, but does not explicitly contrast with the sibling search_jobs beyond the 'no board calls' note.

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