Get Job Types

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does identify this as static reference data (implying a safe, read-only lookup). It does not disclose the return shape or whether the list is exhaustive/cached, but for a zero-parameter lookup the remaining risk is low.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the core action. The second sentence partially restates the first's purpose, but there is no filler or padding.

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 simple lookup with no params, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose but never describes the return format (e.g., array of strings vs. objects), which the agent must guess. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly signals there is no filtering input to supply.

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 ('Retrieve list of available job types') and clarifies the content is reference data. It does not explicitly differentiate from the analogous sibling get_job_countries, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for filtering' and 'filtering job searches by employment type' implies the usage context, suggesting it feeds into job-search tools like find_jobs. However, it names no alternative or explicit when-to-use/when-not condition, leaving usage to inference.

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