indeed_listing: GET /

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions offset-based pagination and return fields but does not disclose rate limits, authentication requirements, or page size limits. Behavioral insight is moderate.

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 concise with two short paragraphs: the first covers functionality and parameters, the second lists use cases. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description reasonably covers the tool's operation. It specifies returned fields and use cases. However, it lacks details on pagination limits, default sort behavior, and error handling, leaving minor gaps.

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 the schema already explains parameters well. The description only adds minor context (e.g., 'sort (relevance/date)' and 'offset-based pagination') that is already in the schema. No significant additional meaning is provided.

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 clearly states the tool searches Indeed job listings by keyword and location, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., hasdata_indeed_job_getJobDetails) by focusing on listing retrieval. The verb 'get' combined with resource 'Indeed Job Listings' is specific.

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 lists specific use cases (job-market dashboards, hiring-trend analysis, etc.), providing context for when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, though the sibling tools imply such boundaries.

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