google_jobs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the tool scrapes server-rendered search page data and notes that page size is fixed at 20 results, which adds context beyond the basic 'search' operation. It does not mention rate limits or error behavior, but for a search tool this is adequate.

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 three sentences, each serving a purpose: identifying the tool, explaining the data source, and stating result contents and pagination. There is no wasted wording, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description provides a solid overview of what the tool does and what results contain (description, responsibilities, qualifications). It does not fully describe return structure (e.g., metadata, total results) or the effect of the location filter, but given the absence of an output schema and the low-to-moderate complexity, this is reasonably 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?

The schema already documents all three parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds value by specifying that page size is fixed at 20, which clarifies how the 'page' parameter works. It does not elaborate on 'q' or 'location' beyond schema definitions, but the extra detail on pagination semantics earns a 4.

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 search tool for Google's public careers site, with a specific verb ('Searches') and resource ('careers.google.com'). It also distinguishes itself from job detail tools by noting that each result includes description, responsibilities, and qualifications inline.

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 implies usage for searching Google careers jobs but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like google_jobs or google_jobs_job. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided, so guidance is only implicit.

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