apple_jobs_search

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the data source mechanism (server-rendered page embedded data), the fixed page size, the limited metadata-only result payload, and explicitly points to the job endpoint for full content. This is rich, honest disclosure.

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 with no fluff. The purpose is front-loaded, followed by technical context, pagination behavior, and a pointer to the sibling tool. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it explains what results contain (metadata only), the pagination limit, and where to get full descriptions. It sufficiently sets expectations for the agent.

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 provides 100% coverage with descriptive parameter names and examples (e.g., location slug format). The description adds the page size constraint, which is behavioral rather than semantic, but doesn't materially enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 'Searches Apple's public careers site (jobs.apple.com)' via a specific technical method. It differentiates itself from the sibling apple_jobs_job tool by noting that search results carry only metadata and directing users to the job endpoint for full details.

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 explicit guidance: use this tool to search Apple's careers site, and use the job endpoint for full descriptions and qualifications. It also notes the fixed page size of 20 results, which informs how to paginate.

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