apple_jobs_locations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly. It discloses that free-text names are rejected, that Apple's typeahead is capped at 10 results, covers four granularities, has no empty-input listing mode, and that without q a static list of 206 country values is returned with no live call, while with q it live-proxies typeahead with results ranked by Apple relevance. This is rich, accurate behavioral context.

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 a single dense paragraph covering all necessary caveats and modes. Every sentence adds information, but the length could be better structured (e.g., bullet points for the two modes) and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'static list' repeated). It is not overly verbose but could be more scannable.

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 (two modes, closed value set, no bulk API) and the absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient information for an agent to invoke it correctly. It explains what to expect (full country list vs. typeahead results) and the constraints, though it doesn't detail response format or potential error conditions. This is adequate for correct usage.

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, but the tool description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains that omitting q yields a static country list, supplying q enables live deeper-level search, and results are ranked by Apple relevance, not alphabetically. This provides operational detail the schema alone lacks.

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 it is a location discovery endpoint for apple-jobs-search's `location` parameter, specifying the verb (discover), resource (Apple Jobs location values), and distinguishing it from the main search tool. It also outlines two distinct modes (with and without q), making its 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 gives explicit guidance on when to omit q (to get the full country-level list) and when to supply q (to discover state/metro/city values). It explains the closed-set nature of values and the lack of a bulk API, which helps an agent decide when to call this endpoint versus alternatives. It does not name an alternative tool, but context makes it clear this is the sole discovery mechanism for Apple Jobs locations.

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