search_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds 'Descriptions are sanitized and never interpreted,' which gives some insight into how the search operates (likely on sanitized fields, ignoring untrusted content). This adds modest behavioral context beyond the annotations, though it remains vague about what 'interpreted' means.

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 only two sentences, very concise, with the main purpose front-loaded. There is no filler or repetition. However, the second sentence about sanitization might be extraneous for purpose clarity but adds behavioral transparency. Structurally it's efficient, though it sacrifices completeness.

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 has 3 parameters with no schema descriptions and a search operation with potential nuances, the description is inadequate. It lacks parameter explanations, usage examples, or any mention of how to constrain the search. The output schema exists, so return values are covered, but the lack of parameter semantics and usage context makes it incomplete for an agent to call correctly.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain the parameters (query, limit, remote_only). The description fails to mention any of them. An agent cannot infer what 'query' refers to, what 'limit' caps, or what 'remote_only' filters. This is a severe gap given the schema provides no descriptions either.

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 states 'Search trusted listing fields' – a clear verb (search) and resource (trusted listing fields). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being a search operation, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'trusted listing fields' is somewhat vague about what fields are included, but it's still a specific purpose.

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?

No guidance is given as to when to use this tool versus siblings like rank_jobs or export_shortlist. The description does not mention alternatives or provide context about choosing this over others. There is no 'when to use' or 'when not to use' information.

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