Search jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that results are compact objects containing salary band, remote modality, countries, application count, and the job description itself, so no extra call is needed for triage. This provides meaningful behavioral context beyond simply stating it's a search.

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, no fluff. The first sentence front-loads the core purpose and scope; the second adds valuable info about return content and triage efficiency. Every phrase earns its place.

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 search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential output fields and the presence of the description for triage. It doesn't clarify the interaction between the `full` parameter and the description inclusion, but given the schema documents that parameter, this is a minor gap. Overall, enough context is provided for an agent to use it correctly.

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 each parameter (query, full, page, per_page) is already documented with examples and defaults. The description adds no parameter-specific semantics; it only reinforces the overall behavior. Baseline of 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource: 'Full-text search over Get on Board job listings' with a clear domain (LATAM tech jobs). It distinguishes itself from siblings like jobs_by_category and jobs_by_company by emphasizing full-text search across all listings, not a filtered browse.

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 implies usage as a general full-text search tool but does not explicitly say when to prefer it over siblings or when not to use it. It mentions 'no extra call is needed to triage,' hinting at an advantage over get_job, but it lacks direct comparisons or exclusion criteria.

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