search_oracle_jobs

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

With no annotations the description must carry the burden, and it does disclose two non-obvious traits: the return payload (full posting text, location, department, job family) and that country filtering is server-side while city matching is performed by this tool. It omits pagination/limit interplay and any rate-limit or auth expectations, which keeps it below 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 front-loaded sentences with no filler; the platform scope leads, the return shape follows, and the location quirk closes. It is dense but every sentence contributes, with the parentheticals the only minor drag.

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 tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description supplies both the return fields and the server-vs-local filtering behavior an agent would otherwise get wrong. What remains unaddressed is how limit interacts with the 200 cap and how this tool relates to the overlapping search_uber_jobs sibling.

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 every parameter including limit, title, location, and both strict_* flags is already documented, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only the rationale for city filtering happening here, which explains strict_location indirectly but gives no new syntax or default information beyond 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 (search) and resource (a career site on Oracle Recruiting Cloud / Fusion), and enumerates the tenant forms it accepts, which implicitly separates it from the many other ATS-specific search_*_jobs siblings. It stops short of naming a sibling to use instead when an employer is not on ORC, so differentiation is by platform rather than by explicit routing.

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 opening clause establishes applicability precisely: any ORC tenant by careers URL or Fusion host, with Oracle and Uber called out as current examples, which tells an agent when this tool is the right pick. It offers no explicit when-not or named alternative (e.g. search_workday_jobs), leaving cross-tool routing to inference.

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