amazon_jobs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the credential-free nature (no auth required), the fact that results include full descriptions and qualifications, and the exact sort semantics (relevant vs recent). It also clarifies that category works standalone. This is substantial behavioral information, though it doesn't cover pagination limits or error handling.

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 concise at roughly 100 words, front-loaded with the tool's purpose, and each sentence provides essential information: purpose, output content, sort options, and the q/category requirement. There is no redundancy or 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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the critical aspects: data source, auth-free access, result contents, sort values, and the q/category constraint. It doesn't describe pagination controls (though page/limit are in the schema) or return envelope details, but the provided information is sufficient for an agent to make informed 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?

The schema already documents all 6 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating the valid sort values (`relevant` default and `recent`) and explaining that category can be used without a text query, which is not clear from the schema alone. This additional context justifies a 4.

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 Amazon's public careers site (amazon.jobs) via a credential-free JSON API, distinguishing it from other search tools like amazon_search (product search) and amazon_jobs_job (likely job detail). The verb 'searches' and explicit resource make the purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: to search Amazon's public careers site. It also includes important usage constraints like the need to provide either q or category, and explains that category can work with no text query. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or when not to use this tool, so it falls short of a perfect score.

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