datasets_jobs_nearby

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 reveals that only geocoded postings are included, explains the background geo-enrich worker, states the default of open roles only, and notes the nearest-first ordering. This meaningfully goes beyond a simple 'find' statement, though it omits pagination or response format details.

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 lead sentence is front-loaded and clear, and the second sentence adds core detail economically. However, the third sentence includes a long provider enum list that is already available in the input schema, making it redundant. This unnecessary repetition prevents a higher score.

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 tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: core behavior, inclusion criteria, default filters, and ordering. It does not explain pagination defaults or return structure, but these are either in the schema or not required given the absence of an output schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minor value by explaining the default behavior of include_closed ('Open roles only by default') and reinforcing the meaning of radius_km and lat/lon. The provider enum list is redundant with the schema and does not add semantic information.

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: 'Find postings near a coordinate' and elaborates on the mechanism ('within radius_km of a lat/lon, nearest first'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like datasets_jobs_search by focusing on geospatial search over crawled job postings.

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 clear context about when to use the tool: when you have a coordinate and want nearby job postings. It also provides an important caveat that only geocoded postings participate, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude other datasets tools, leaving some routing to inference.

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