search_gcjobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses that filters are sent as the board's own form sends them, confirmed against the page echo, that title/location/salary are re-verified, and that rows return soonest-closing first. It omits rate limits, error behavior, and what fields each row contains, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and domain, then behavior, then routing advice — a sensible order. A couple of clauses (the 'way the board's own form sends them' detail) are dense but earn their place by conveying verification behavior; overall it is tight for the amount of substance.

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 an 8-parameter, zero-annotation, no-output-schema search tool this covers purpose, filtering semantics, sort order, the fetch fallback, and the crucial eligibility caveat. The main gap is that return-row shape is unspecified, which an agent may need to know when parsing results.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by identifying which five inputs are 'real board filters' and which three (title, location, salary) are re-checked server-side after submission. It does not elaborate on strict_title or exclude_various_locations, which live entirely in the schema.

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 and resource — searching the GC Jobs federal public service board — and pins it to the exact domain. It distinguishes itself from the many other job-search siblings by being the only route to Government of Canada postings, and explains why a plain fetch fails, so an agent can tell it apart immediately.

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?

Explicitly names the constraint 'Give at least one filter' (matching the schema's anyOf), and routes the agent to the sibling get_gcjobs_job with the precise condition: before relying on eligibility, since 'Who can apply' is not on the listing. It also excludes fetch by explaining the JS-shell failure mode.

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