search_meta_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It usefully discloses a fallback behavior: a place name is matched against Meta's real office list, and that list is returned when nothing matches. However, it does not cover other relevant traits such as read-only nature (implied by 'search'), rate limits, authentication, or result format/pagination.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by a key input nuance. Every clause earns its place, and there is no extraneous text.

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 five-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and a critical location-formatting detail, but it omits useful context such as result ordering, pagination behavior, and explicit usage contrast with sibling job-search tools. It is adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 value beyond the schema by explaining the specific location-matching quirk (e.g., 'Vancouver, Canada' vs 'Vancouver, BC') and the fallback behavior when no office matches. It does not elaborate on limit, remote_only, or strict_title, but the schema already documents those fully.

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, resource, and target site: 'Search metacareers.com by title and office.' This immediately distinguishes it from sibling job-search tools that target other companies (LinkedIn, Indeed, etc.). An agent can tell exactly what this tool does without opening the schema.

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 implies usage (searching Meta jobs) and provides input-format guidance for office names, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the many sibling job-board search tools. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving the agent to infer that this is Meta-specific from the domain name.

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