source_source_search_market

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: fans out across providers, deduplicates, filters by query, sorts by date. However, it does not discuss rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, which would improve transparency.

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 with clear front-loading of purpose. Each sentence provides distinct value: purpose, source details, result processing. No wasted words.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (aggregator) and presence of an output schema, the description covers the core functionality and result processing. It could mention behavior for empty results or interactions with per_provider_limit, but overall it is sufficiently complete for invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning or usage guidance beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It does not elaborate on parameter interactions or edge cases.

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 searches across multiple job sources for maximum breadth, naming specific boards and optional providers. It distinguishes from individual source tools (e.g., source_greenhouse) by emphasizing the aggregator nature.

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 implies use for broad searches and mentions optional keyed providers, but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool in favor of individual sources. The context of sibling tools provides differentiation, but the description lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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