personalized_job_hunt

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive), so the bar is lower. The description still earns credit for disclosing a non-obvious behavioral trait: this tool invokes MCP elicitation and will prompt the user with preference questions, which materially changes how an agent should sequence the call.

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?

A single sentence with no filler, and the distinguishing mechanism is placed immediately after the purpose. It is efficient rather than padded, though it is arguably too terse for an interactive multi-turn tool.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and with one fully documented parameter the surface area is small. However, for a tool whose defining trait is multi-turn elicitation, the description omits what the agent must do with the elicited answers, how many rounds to expect, and what gets returned afterwards.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema documents it fully as the "initial job search keyword or role", so the baseline is 3. The description adds nothing about how kw is used relative to the elicitation follow-ups, e.g. whether kw alone can drive results or only seeds the questionnaire.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("interactive job search") and names the mechanism that distinguishes it from the many other search siblings: it asks the user what matters via MCP elicitation. It is not a tautology, though "personalized" in the name is doing some unexplained work.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and none of the obvious alternatives (search_jobs, search_jobs_advanced, smart_match_jobs, search_jobs_multi) are named. The only hint is that this variant is interactive, leaving the agent to infer that it suits underspecified preference discovery rather than a direct keyword lookup.

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