search_arbeitnow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds important context beyond that: filtering is local over fetched pages, and all fetched jobs are stored, which explains the non-read-only side effect and the fetch-then-filter mechanics. It does not mention rate limits or response shape, but explains the key behavioral trait.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the source and access model, then the filtering/storage behavior. The parenthetical is information-dense but not wasteful, and no sentence is superfluous.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained; annotations cover the safety profile; the description adds the storage side effect and local filtering caveat. The main remaining gap is routing guidance versus sibling search tools and the meaning of the aktualisieren parameter.

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 high (83%), so the schema already documents most parameters such as ort, was, seiten, remote_only, and visa_sponsorship. The description adds the meaningful caveat that filtering is local over fetched pages, which clarifies how seiten interacts with filters, but it does not explain the undocumented aktualisieren flag.

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 resource (Stellen von Arbeitnow) and source behavior (aggregiert ATS-Feeds wie Greenhouse, Personio, Recruitee). It is clearly a job search against a named aggregator, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling search_jobs tool.

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?

It gives useful context — free, no key, ATS aggregation — which implies when this source is attractive, but it never states when to use this instead of search_jobs or get_ats_jobs, nor any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

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