job_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the search is based on title, it's not paginated, and it returns all matches. This covers scope and output behavior but misses details like rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but it's moderately informative.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: two short sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the purpose, and the second adds critical behavioral context. Every word earns its place, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what the tool does and its non-paginated behavior, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with siblings. For a simple search tool, it's minimally viable but not fully comprehensive.

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 100% description coverage, with the 'title' parameter fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond implying the search uses this title field. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3, and the description doesn't enhance or compensate beyond that.

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 for jobs by title.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('jobs'), and search criteria ('by title'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'job_list' or 'candidate_search,' which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides minimal guidance: it mentions 'Not paginated; returns all matches,' which hints at usage for retrieving complete result sets. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use advice, such as comparing to 'job_list' (which might list all jobs without filtering) or 'candidate_search' (which searches candidates, not jobs). No alternatives or exclusions are named.

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