google_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states a limitation ('does not accept a country code') and explains how to geo-target via the 'location' parameter. This adds meaningful behavior beyond what the schema alone provides, though it doesn't cover every edge like pagination specifics.

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?

The description is three sentences long, each earning its place: the first defines what the tool does, the second specifies when to use it, and the third gives a critical usage constraint. It is front-loaded and contains zero filler.

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 search tool with no output schema and five parameters, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core purpose, usage context, and a key behavioral limitation. The parameter nuances are already well-handled by the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat them.

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?

The schema covers all parameters with clear descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining how to use 'location' for geo-targeting and advising to include the place in the query as well as in 'location' for best results. This enriches the schema's descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search Google Jobs for job listings with company, location and apply links.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly differentiates it from generic search siblings by saying 'Use this for any hiring, vacancy or job market question.' This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for any hiring, vacancy or job market question.' It also gives a key exclusion: 'This engine does not accept a country code,' and recommends passing 'location' for geo-targeting. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the guidance is clear and actionable.

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