search_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint/destructiveHint/openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavioral context: geo resolves via candidate eligibility including parent regions and global jobs, cursors are opaque, and jobCount counts only the current page. This is meaningful disclosure beyond the annotations.

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?

Five short, front-loaded sentences, each carrying distinct information (scope, geo semantics, routing, cursor rule, page counting) with no filler or repetition of structured fields.

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 described, and the description covers the tricky parts an agent must know: geo eligibility semantics, cursor handling, routing to resolve_taxonomy, and page-scoped jobCount. Nothing essential is missing for a 12-param search tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: geo is not a plain slug match but an eligibility model (parent regions, global jobs), and cursor must be passed unchanged with identical filters. These additions lift it above baseline.

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 gives a clear verb+resource ('Search public remote jobs') and adds a distinguishing scope note ('compact results, without full descriptions'), which signals it differs from a full-detail fetch. It does not explicitly name the closest sibling (get_jobs), so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 an explicit routing rule: 'Call directly when filters are clear; use resolve_taxonomy for uncertain slugs,' naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. It also supplies pagination usage guidance ('pass nextCursor unchanged with identical filters'), leaving little to inference.

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