source_search_all

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

Given no annotations, the description adds important behavioral info: network failures per provider are silently dropped. It also states the return format (flat list of JobPosting objects). Could disclose more, but this is good value beyond null annotations.

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 sentences, no waste. The main action is front-loaded. Achieves conciseness without sacrificing critical information.

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?

With 9 optional parameters and no parameter documentation, the description leaves gaps on how to select providers. The output schema covers return structure. Adequate but not fully complete for a multi-source aggregation tool.

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 0% and the description adds no meaning for the 9 parameters. While parameter names like 'greenhouse_tokens' are self-explanatory to some extent, the description does not explain their purpose or how they map to providers.

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 uses a specific verb ('Fetch and aggregate') and resource ('jobs from multiple keyless providers'), clearly distinguishing it from single-provider sibling tools like source_greenhouse, source_remotive, etc.

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?

Implied usage: the tool aggregates jobs from multiple providers concurrently, suggesting it's for broad searches. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use it vs alternatives or when not to use it.

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