datasets_jobs_nearby

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

With no annotations, the description bears full burden. It discloses that only geocoded postings participate, mentions a back-fill worker, defaults (open roles), and provider filter alignment with search. It does not mention rate limits or error cases, but covers key behavioral traits.

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?

Four sentences, no fluff. Each sentence adds essential information: spatial search, geocoding limitation, default filter, provider enum. Front-loaded with the core action.

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 spatial search tool with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description covers core functionality, data limitations, and defaults. It could mention pagination (page, page_size) but schema already describes them. Overall, it is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond schema by explaining ordering ('nearest first'), default behavior (open roles, radius default 50), and the geocoding context. It enriches parameter understanding without redundancy.

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 finds job postings near a coordinate, specifying ordering (nearest first) and key filters. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like datasets_jobs_search (text search) and datasets_jobs_item (single item).

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 context (geocoded postings only, default open roles) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like datasets_jobs_search. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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