search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly covers automatic exclusion of paid training ads, deduplication across boards, ranking, memory flags, location intelligence, response sizing behavior, and the fact that all remaining results stay stored. This gives an agent a clear picture of side effects and processing behavior beyond a simple 'search jobs' statement.

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 dense and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first, followed by structured guidance on paging, response sizing, default behavior, and exclusions. Every sentence carries useful information, but the long paragraph format makes it harder to parse quickly; bullet-like sections would improve scannability.

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 tool's complexity — 19 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema — the description covers the essential invocation flows, defaults, important exclusions, and key response characteristics. It does not fully document every parameter or the complete return shape, but it provides enough context for an agent to correctly perform fresh searches, page results, and tune response size.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining query, profile, search_id, offset, context_window, response_profile, limit, include_training, location_policy, and work_from_home. However, several parameters — sources, location, min_salary, max_days_old, radius_miles, drop_mismatch, drop_req_gap, limit_per_source, and enrich_descriptions — are left undocumented in both schema and description, preventing a perfect score.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run a UK job search OR page an earlier one.' It clearly distinguishes the two operating modes (fresh search vs. paging an existing search) and gives concrete examples for query and profile. This makes the tool's purpose immediately obvious and differentiates it from siblings like get_job or fetch_job_description.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: fresh searches take query/profile, while paging uses search_id+offset. It also explains when not to do something, such as setting include_training=true only when the user explicitly asks for courses, and documents defaults like the balanced response profile. This is strong operational guidance, even without naming sibling tools directly.

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