search_uber_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses that the board answers anonymously (no auth needed) and that results carry the full posting text rather than snippets. It omits rate limits, pagination behavior, and whether result counts are capped beyond the limit parameter.

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 short sentences with the search action and scope front-loaded; the second sentence is informational rather than padding. Slightly verbose about the Oracle backend, but it earns its place by explaining why full descriptions are available.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description helpfully enumerates expected return fields (title, department, team, level, location, description). For a five-parameter read-only search this is nearly complete, with only pagination and result-ordering behavior left unstated.

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 all five parameters including strict_title and strict_location are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the general notion of filtering by title and location, no extra semantics for the strictness flags, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (Search) and a precisely scoped resource (Uber's job board), with the qualifying dimensions (title and location) named up front. It is trivially distinguishable from the many sibling job-board tools because the company is named, and it even clarifies the underlying ATS (Oracle Recruiting), which helps separate it from search_oracle_jobs.

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 title/location framing implies when the tool applies, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer it over search_oracle_jobs or the other company-specific job tools, nor any stated prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferable rather than instructed.

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