Search Jobs

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

Annotations cover read-only and open-world safety, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: sources are queried concurrently, empty sources silently contribute nothing, and a failing source surfaces in `errors` without discarding successful results. That partial-failure semantics is exactly the kind of context annotations cannot convey. It does not address rate limits or deduplication across boards.

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 with the core action front-loaded. The second sentence about per-source failures is useful rather than filler. Minor inefficiency: the 'contributes nothing' clause is somewhat redundant with the errors clause.

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 an output schema present, return values don't need explaining, and the annotations handle safety. The description covers concurrency, defaults, and partial-failure reporting, which is nearly everything an agent needs; it only omits deduplication, pagination, and rate-limit behavior.

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 100%, so all six parameters including sources, limit, and ai_ml_only are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., how `query` matching works or board-name syntax), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 with scope: 'Search one company's open roles across job boards.' The single-company scope implicitly contrasts with the multi-company sibling search_many, but that sibling is never named, so the differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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?

Usage context is implied by 'one company's open roles' and the note that sources default to greenhouse and workday. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when to prefer search_many, get_job, or classify_title as follow-ups.

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