Search Job Postings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description adds the hiring-signal use case and platform scope but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as pagination behavior, rate limits, or platform-specific response differences. It neither contradicts annotations nor enriches them significantly.

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 two compact sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and resource, enumerates the main filter categories, and ends with a practical use-case sentence—each part earns its place.

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 rich annotations (read-only, idempotent), a fully described 14-parameter schema, and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's scope and value. The hiring-signal context adds orientation beyond what structured metadata provides, making the description complete for this complexity level.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all 14 parameters, including explicit per-parameter explanations and enum values. The description's filter list (employment type, remote/onsite, seniority, freshness, employer) simply restates a subset of the schema terms without adding new meaning or usage guidance beyond what the schema already provides.

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 uses the specific verb 'Search' on 'job postings on LinkedIn or Indeed' and enumerates the key filter dimensions (keyword, location, employment type, remote/onsite, seniority, freshness, employer). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like search_people, search_company, and search_posts by focusing on job postings and hiring signals.

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 useful context about when to use the tool ('Useful for hiring signals: which companies are recruiting for what roles, where') and indicates the platforms it supports. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, but the sibling list and the clear platform/resource scope make the intended use obvious.

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