search_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavior: pulls from specific ATS boards, filters to US roles, excludes security-clearance/US-citizenship-required postings, de-duplicates, and returns newest first. This is detailed behavioral transparency.

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 structured with a summary line, behavioral details, and an Args section. Every sentence adds value, and the arg descriptions are clear and brief. No waste.

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 3 optional params and an output schema, the description covers return structure ('list of {company, title, location, url, posted, source}'), parameter semantics, and behavioral filters/ordering. It leaves little ambiguity for a search tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description's Args section extensively explains each parameter: query semantics ('words that must all appear'), location format ('us' or substring), limit range (1-100), including examples. This fully compensates for the schema gap.

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+resource: 'Search live US software-engineering job openings.' It further specifies data sources (Greenhouse/Lever/Ashby, community feed) and exclusions, clearly distinguishing it from the sibling tool list_sources.

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 the tool: to find current US software-engineering jobs matching query/location. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not-to-use, but the context is enough for a search tool.

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