Jobs Finder

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that pagination is supported; it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, result caps, or what a match returns. For a 9-parameter search tool with zero annotation coverage, that is a substantial gap.

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 tight sentences with the search scope front-loaded before the capability note. No filler, though the second sentence is generic enough that it earns less than its length suggests.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is the only behavioral source and it is thin. An agent cannot tell what the matching semantics are (exact vs substring), whether filters are ANDed, what a response looks like, or how pagination terminates.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description must compensate but only names four concepts (company, title, location, experience level) and gestures at pagination. country_id, company_website, and job_description have no semantic explanation anywhere; the enum values for experience_level are likewise undocumented.

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 ('Search for job postings') and enumerates the criteria dimension it covers (company, title, location, experience level). It does not differentiate itself from the sibling find_role, which an agent would plausibly reach for on similar intent.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing against alternatives such as find_role or get_job_types. 'For comprehensive job market research' gestures at intent but gives no condition that selects this tool over a sibling.

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