search_jobs

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

Annotations indicate read-only and open-world hints, which the description doesn't contradict. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it mentions 'freshness badges on every result,' timestamped results sorted freshest first, and that it prevents applying to closed roles. This provides insight into output behavior and user benefits not covered by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and key feature (freshness badges), followed by supporting details in a single, efficient sentence. Every part adds value: sources, filtering capabilities, and result sorting without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (6 parameters, no output schema), the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, sources, key features, and result behavior. However, it could be more explicit about error handling or rate limits, though annotations provide some safety context with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint.

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 high at 83%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning 'location filtering, remote-only mode, keyword spotting (e.g. FIFO), and max age filtering,' which aligns with parameters but doesn't provide additional details beyond what the schema already describes in its property descriptions.

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 searches for 'real-time job listings with freshness badges' from specific sources (Remotive, RemoteOK, The Muse, HN 'Who is Hiring'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that extract data from other domains like GitHub, SEC filings, or HackerNews. It specifies the verb 'search' and resource 'job listings' with unique freshness features.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by listing its supported features (location filtering, remote-only mode, keyword spotting, max age filtering) and sources. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, though the context implies it's for job searches versus other data extraction tools.

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