search_jobs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds real behavior: per_page is capped at 30, sponsored/pinned ads are filtered by default, and unmatched area/jobcat values return candidate lists rather than failing.

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?

Dense and front-loaded, with the highest-value routing info (id→get_job, source table) first. Every clause carries semantic weight; it reads as a compact parameter legend rather than prose, though the run-on formatting slightly reduces scannability.

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 15-parameter tool with no output schema, the description does well by naming the table return and covering most high-value filters. Gaps remain for page, new_only, with_sponsored, and keyword, so it is not fully complete but is well above adequate.

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%, so the description carries the full burden. It documents source, area/jobcat (Chinese names with fuzzy-match fallback), salary_min + salary_unit units, education, job_type, sort, my_years semantics, and per_page limit — substantial compensation, though page, new_only, with_sponsored, and keyword remain undefined.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('搜尋職缺' / search job listings) and immediately clarifies the return shape ('回傳表格'), routing the id to get_job and company_id to get_company. This differentiates it cleanly from its detail-lookup siblings without opening their schemas.

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?

Gives explicit per-source routing guidance (104 default/most complete, yourator for startups, boards for foreign official sites, all for merged) and warns that the latter two sources only support keyword/area/sort=newest, so other filters are silently dropped. Strong selection guidance, though no explicit 'don't use this when' framing.

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