apple_jobs_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It openly states that it relies on the server-rendered search page's embedded job data (an implementation detail), that page size is fixed at 20 results, and that results only contain identity/location/team metadata—not full descriptions. This gives the agent an accurate mental model of what to expect. It doesn't mention error handling or rate limits, but those are minor omissions for a read-only search tool. The description adds substantial context beyond the bare schema.

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 exactly two sentences. The first sentence establishes purpose and mechanism; the second states a critical constraint (page size) and the scope of returned data, plus a pointer to the job endpoint for full details. Every sentence carries value, there is no fluff, and the most important facts are front-loaded.

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 search tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, how it works, a pagination constraint, the nature of returned results (metadata only), and where to get more detailed information. It also hints at the location format requirement. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 is 100%: all three parameters (q, page, location) have descriptions in the input schema. The description adds no new semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema already provides. For instance, the schema already explains the location slug format and points to apple-jobs-locations. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't exceed that baseline.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Searches Apple's public careers site') and explains the mechanism (via server-rendered search page's embedded job data). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like apple_jobs_job (which fetches a specific job) and apple_jobs_locations (which discovers valid location slugs). An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from related tools.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool for search and directs it to 'call the job endpoint for the full description and qualifications,' which is a clear pointer to the apple_jobs_job sibling. It also mentions that for location filters, one should 'call apple-jobs-locations to discover valid values.' This provides concrete guidance on when to use alternatives, leaving no ambiguity about routing.

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