search_eightfold_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides meaningful behavioral context: the board ranks rather than filters, title filtering is re-applied against posting names, the number dropped is reported, and location matching returns the board's own spellings when nothing matches. It does not cover authentication, rate limits, or return format, but the ranking/filtering caveat is unusually transparent.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with the core search scope, then the important ranking caveat, then the follow-up fetch instruction. No filler; every sentence carries actionable information.

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 7-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the key behavioral caveat (ranking vs filtering), the follow-up path for full descriptions, and location quirks. It could say more about the return shape (e.g., list of postings with URLs) but adequately enables correct invocation.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine meaning beyond the schema by explaining that strict_title re-applies the title against each posting's own name and reports the number dropped, and that location returns the board's own spellings when nothing matches—semantics the schema alone does not convey.

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 states a specific verb (Search), resource (company career site hosted by Eightfold AI), and scope (Microsoft, Netflix, PayPal, or any Eightfold tenant via board URL). This clearly distinguishes it from generic job search siblings by naming the hosting platform, though it doesn't explicitly compare against the many other job-board tools.

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 gives an implied context—use this for Eightfold-hosted career sites—and a follow-up instruction to use fetch() for full descriptions. However, it does not explicitly say when to choose this over search_linkedin_jobs, search_indeed, or the other job-board siblings, nor does it state exclusions.

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