gulf_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description does real work: it discloses the four upstream sources, that duplicates are merged, and that Bayt and GulfTalent are 'best effort' — an important reliability caveat an agent can use to temper confidence. It stops short of disclosing rate limits, latency, or what happens when a source fails entirely.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and sources, then the return shape, then the caveat — good ordering with no filler. The field enumeration in sentence two partly duplicates the output schema, which costs a little space but aids scanning.

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 output schema covers return values, so the description need not explain them. However, for a three-parameter aggregation tool with zero schema descriptions, the lack of any parameter guidance (especially max_jobs_per_source) leaves a meaningful gap an agent must guess at.

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 three parameters. The description implies a country scope ('in a Gulf country') and a keyword search, but never explains what 'keywords' does (all-terms vs any-term, matching fields) or what 'max_jobs_per_source' controls beyond its default of 20 — a volume knob an agent would likely want to tune.

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 names a specific resource (current job listings in a Gulf country), the four boards aggregated, and the dedupe behavior, so an agent knows exactly what this tool returns. No sibling overlaps in domain (property transactions, gold price, retail products, web search), so differentiation is implicit but unambiguous.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'in one search', which suggests using this instead of querying each board separately. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer it over the web_search sibling, no note on country coverage limits, and no exclusions.

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