meta_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. It discloses the anonymous endpoint, the empty-request behavior (returns entire catalog), the AND filter semantics, and the limitation of q. It does not mention response format or potential rate limits, but it provides meaningful behavioral context beyond the 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 long, but almost every sentence provides necessary information, especially the enum lists that are absent from the schema. The structure is logical: purpose, semantics, then parameter details. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows with essential constraints. The length is justified by the 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 covers the endpoint, filter behavior, empty-request behavior, q semantics, and enums. It does not explicitly describe the response format, but the lack of an output schema suggests the agent must infer it. Given the complexity and the absence of annotations, this is a highly complete description, with minor gaps around return value structure and potential errors.

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 significant value by providing the full enum lists for teams and roles, which the schema lacks, and by clarifying q's special semantics (not free-text). It also explains that all filters are optional and combine with AND, adding meaning beyond the raw 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 the tool searches Meta's public careers site via a specific GraphQL endpoint. It names the resource (metacareers.com) and the action (search), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_jobs_job and meta_jobs_list by focusing on the search/filter behavior.

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 explains when to use the tool (searching Meta jobs with filters) and provides important behavioral guidance, such as the q parameter not being a free-text title/description search and the AND semantics for combining filters. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like meta_jobs_job or meta_jobs_list, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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