search_jobs_in_region

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully bears the burden of behavioral transparency. It discloses an important dependency: job locations are geocoded to test containment, requiring an API key. This is valuable context for the agent. However, it does not mention whether the tool is read-only, which would be helpful.

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 two sentences long, concise and front-loaded. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second adds the mechanism and requirement. No unnecessary words or 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 the tool has 8 parameters, 5 required, and a sibling 'search_jobs' that contrasts with this region-specific variant, the description covers the key distinguishing aspects (region-based, geocoding) but lacks details on pagination, error handling, or optional parameter behavior. An output schema exists, which reduces the need to describe return values.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the four coordinate parameters (ne_lat, ne_lng, sw_lat, sw_lng) by stating to 'pass the north-east and south-west corners.' However, it does not describe the 'query', 'remote', 'sources', or 'max_results' parameters, leaving a gap in semantics for those.

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's purpose: 'Search jobs inside a map-selected rectangular region (a bounding box).' The verb 'Search' and resource 'jobs' are specific, and the scope 'inside a map-selected rectangular region' distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'search_jobs' which likely performs a general search without geographic constraints.

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 explains when to use the tool (when a bounding box is selected on a map) and mentions a prerequisite: 'Requires GOOGLE_MAPS_API_KEY.' It does not explicitly state when not to use it or reference alternatives like 'search_jobs' for non-geographic queries, which would improve clarity.

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