search_jobs

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

Discloses the non-obvious side effect that every listing is persisted to memory and that repeat searches return a comparison against the previous identical search — this is precisely what explains readOnlyHint=false on a search tool. Combined with the 'aktualisieren' escape hatch for a fresh fetch instead of cache, the agent understands the stateful behavior annotations alone could not convey.

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?

Three short sentences: what it searches, how it behaves across calls, and where details live. Front-loaded with the source, zero filler, nothing redundant with the schema.

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 13-parameter, zero-required search tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description covers the remaining gaps an agent would trip on: persistence, delta semantics, the refresh flag, and the handoff to get_job_details. Return-value shape is delegated to the output schema as expected.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaning the schema cannot: that results are cached per identical query, that deltas are reported relative to that query, and that refnr (an output field) is the key for get_job_details — useful cross-parameter context.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Stellensuche in der Jobbörse der Bundesagentur für Arbeit') and pins down the source, which is exactly what separates it from siblings like search_arbeitnow and get_ats_jobs. It also routes detail lookups to get_job_details(refnr), so an agent knows the division of labor immediately.

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?

Explicitly states that repeated identical searches yield a delta of new/changed/removed listings and that details belong to get_job_details. It stops short of stating when to prefer this over search_arbeitnow or the other job siblings, so the choice across sources is still inferred.

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