search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says it 'Returns a list of jobs' but doesn't disclose pagination behavior, result ordering, whether the 'limit' is a hard cap, or what happens when no jobs match. It also doesn't mention any rate limits or platform-specific quirks. For a search tool with no annotations, this is a notable gap.

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 a single sentence that is concise and front-loaded with the main action. It includes a useful example platform and states the return type. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the return behavior), but it's efficient and not bloated.

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 search tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is adequate but not complete. It doesn't explain the relationship with get_job_details (e.g., 'use get_job_details to fetch full details for a returned job ID'), nor does it describe result structure or edge cases. The absence of an output schema means the description should clarify what fields are returned, but it doesn't.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it mentions 'query and location' but doesn't clarify the default behavior of location ('Defaults to Remote' is in the schema, not the description). The description doesn't add meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Search') and resource ('job listings across multiple platforms'), and names an example platform (Lever). It clearly distinguishes from get_job_details, which is about retrieving details for a specific job. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with the sibling, so it's clear but not fully differentiated.

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 context: use this to find jobs matching a query and location. It doesn't explicitly state when to use get_job_details instead, nor does it mention any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling name suggests a complementary flow (search then get details), but the description doesn't spell that out.

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