search_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool performs external network fetches against named public ATS feeds and writes a normalized cache, which is real added context. But it omits rate-limit/failure behavior, whether the cache is refreshed or merged, whether pagination exists, and what a call returns.

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?

A single tight sentence with no filler, and the source list is useful rather than decorative. It is arguably too terse for the amount of undocumented behavior, and the capitalized 'REAL' is unexplained noise.

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 three-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage, no output schema, and 0% schema descriptions, the description is far too thin. An agent knows roughly which sites are hit but not what to pass, what comes back, or how caching affects repeated calls.

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 0% across three parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. The provider list hints at what 'boards' contains, but 'query' and 'limit' are never mentioned, leaving the search semantics and result capping entirely undocumented.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Pull REAL public JSON feeds ... and cache normalized jobs') and names the exact sources (Greenhouse/Lever/Ashby/Workable). However, it never reconciles the tool's name 'search_jobs' with the described fetch-and-cache behavior, so an agent cannot tell whether this searches or merely ingests job listings. The required 'boards' concept is only implied via the provider list.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of any sibling despite 'match_jobs' plausibly covering a closely related job-related step. The agent must guess where this sits in the pipeline relative to match_jobs and the tracker tools.

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