Search jobs

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

Without annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden by explaining server-side vs local filtering, default/max page size, and cursor pagination. It does not explicitly state read-only or authentication requirements, though 'Search' strongly implies a read operation.

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 filters, then pagination details. The status value list duplicates the schema, but the overall paragraph is bounded and no framing sentence is wasted.

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 carries the return explanation: up to limit results plus a cursor, and which fields are searched. It is adequate for a 7-parameter read search, though it omits auth or rate-limit context.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces status enum values, date formats, default/max limit, and that client_id is a local filter, but adds little meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 'Jobber jobs (work orders)', and enumerates searchable fields plus filter dimensions. No sibling tool provides job search, so it is readily distinguishable from get_quotes, get_schedule, and get_client_details.

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 that status, created date, and free-text filters are applied server-side and that client_id is a local filter, giving clear operational context. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, keeping it below a 5.

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