source_usajobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It only mentions required environment variables but does not disclose behavioral traits such as rate limits, pagination, error handling, or the nature of the return data. This is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 two short sentences that directly convey the tool's purpose and a key prerequisite. Every word earns its place, and there is no extraneous 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, and an output schema exists), the description is mostly adequate. However, it lacks usage context and behavioral details that would help the agent invoke it correctly, although the output schema likely covers return values.

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 for the single parameter is 100%, with the schema already describing 'Keywords to search for (e.g. `"software developer"`)'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the tool's domain context, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 'Fetch US federal jobs from USAJobs.gov', specifying the action (fetch) and the resource (US federal jobs from a specific source). This distinguishes it from sibling source_ tools that fetch from other job boards.

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 usage for fetching US federal jobs, and mentions prerequisites (environment variables). However, it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it mention limitations or context for selection.

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