hcm_search_jobs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation covers the safety profile, and the description does not contradict it. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'Search' — no mention of pagination, matching behavior, result scope, or what 'LOV' implies about the response.

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 text is extremely short, which is concise in word count, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently informative. 'Search jobs LOV' leaves out essential semantics and reads as a fragment.

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 tool with 4 undocumented parameters, no output schema, and many related siblings, the description is far from complete. It provides no information about query syntax, required vs optional inputs, return shape, or when to choose this search over other job-related tools.

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 0% for 4 parameters (q, limit, finder, offset), and the description provides no meaning for any of them. The description must compensate for the empty schema but does not even mention that q is a search term or how limit/offset affect results.

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 the verb ('Search') and resource ('jobs'), so it is not a pure tautology. However, 'LOV' is unexplained jargon and the description does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings like hcm_get_job or hcm_search_positions.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_get_job, hcm_search_positions, or hcm_search_requisitions. The description gives no context about the intended LOV/autocomplete use case or any exclusions.

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