search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose that it wraps list_jobs with a query parameter, which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it omits details on output format, pagination, or how limit behaves, and there is a minor inconsistency between the mentioned 'q=…' and the actual parameter 'query'.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes usage guidance without unnecessary detail. Every word 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?

For a simple search tool with only two parameters and no annotations, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, usage context, and search fields. It does not describe the return format, but the tool name and wrapper reference imply it returns jobs. Minor gaps include limit semantics and explicit 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains that query performs free-text search on title/description, which adds meaning to that parameter. However, the optional 'limit' parameter is not described at all, leaving its semantics unclear.

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 function: 'Free-text search jobs by title/description.' It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_jobs by explicitly labeling itself as a wrapper with q=…, making its scope and relationship to alternatives clear.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this when the user describes work in natural language.' It also names an alternative (list_jobs) and clarifies that it is a wrapper, helping the agent decide when to use it.

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