search_jobbank

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely meets it: it discloses a serious silent-failure mode (an unresolved location returns 64,000+ national postings as an ordinary success) and explains that results are radius-based with the radius reported. It omits auth/rate-limit behavior and return shape, which keeps 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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool is, followed by the two facts most likely to cause a wrong call (location resolution and radius semantics). No filler and no repetition of the name.

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 6-parameter, annotation-free search tool with no output schema, the description covers the major pitfall and the scoping model. It stops short of describing result ordering, pagination, or what fields come back, which is a modest gap given there is no output schema to rely on.

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 100%, so the schema already documents limit, title, location, radius_km, strict_title and strict_location in detail, including example radii. The description adds the reason location must be resolvable but otherwise restates schema-level behavior; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Search jobbank.gc.ca, the federal Job Bank') and identifies the board precisely, which separates it from siblings like search_indeed, search_gcjobs, and search_linkedin_jobs. It also states a differentiating characteristic (salary published on most listings).

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?

Explains the mechanics of use — a place name is resolved to a numeric city id, and searches are radius-based around a city — which tells the agent how to supply inputs correctly. It does not explicitly name when to prefer this over search_indeed or search_gcjobs, so the routing guidance is implied rather than stated.

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