indeed_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 meaningfully explains the dual transport mechanism (credential-free GraphQL API for basic requests, web-page transport for page 2+ or fromage), notes that the response shape is normalized across both, and explicitly states the sort default. This goes beyond a simple 'searches jobs' description and provides useful operational expectations, though it stops short of describing rate limits or failure modes.

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 well-organized and appropriately sized: it opens with a clear purpose statement, then adds two sentences of transport detail, and closes with the sort enum/default. Every sentence adds value, and there is no padding or redundancy. The structure is front-loaded and easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description provides sufficient context by explaining the transport routes, normalization, and sort option. It does not describe the response shape, but the 'same normalized response shape' hint partially compensates. It could be improved by hinting at what fields are returned or by positioning it among sibling search tools, but it is largely complete for practical use.

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 covers 100% of the parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by specifying that `sort` defaults to `relevance` (which the schema does not state) and by giving behavioral context to `page` and `fromage` as triggers for the fallback transport. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that the tool searches Indeed job postings by keyword and location, using the verb 'searches' with a specific resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like indeed_job (which likely retrieves a specific job) implicitly, but it does not explicitly name alternatives. Overall, the purpose is clear and specific.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as indeed_job or google_jobs_search. It does provide internal context about transport selection (page 1 vs page 2+ or fromage), which implies when certain features are used, but there are no explicit when/when-not guidelines or mentions of sibling tools. The usage context is only implied through the search-by-keyword-and-location framing.

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