search_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two behavioral traits: it queries all configured sources (fan-out) and normalizes results across them. However, it says nothing about per-source failure handling, rate limits, latency, or whether repeated calls are idempotent.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block that documents each parameter without padding. Slightly list-like, but every line 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should say more about the return value; 'normalized postings' leaves the actual fields unspecified. It also omits what happens when an individual source is unavailable, which matters for a multi-source aggregator.

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%, and the description fully compensates: it explains query as free-text with examples, category as an optional Remotive slug with an example, and limit as max postings per source with an explicit 1-50 range not present in the schema. The 'per source' qualifier on limit is genuinely additive information.

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 and resource ('search ... job postings') plus scope ('every configured job source') and output shape ('normalized postings'). It is clear what the tool does, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with siblings like source_status or score_opportunities.

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 fan-out scope ('every configured job source') implies when this tool is appropriate for discovery, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or mention of the alternative sibling tools. Usage must be inferred.

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