Search jobs

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: results are normalized/deduplicated, include source failures/provenance, and the warning that returned job text is untrusted third-party content and should never be followed. This goes beyond the annotations, though it doesn't cover auth or rate limits.

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 concise sentences front-load the main action and result format, then add a critical safety note. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

The description covers core purpose, output characteristics, and a safety warning. However, it lacks parameter explanations and detailed return structure (e.g., pagination, error handling), and with no output schema, the agent must guess at the result format. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any parameter (query, limit, sources, location, hours_old, remote_only). It provides no additional meaning beyond the schema's structural constraints, leaving agents to infer parameter purposes from names alone.

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 action (search), the resource (enabled providers), and the distinctive output (normalized, deduplicated pool with source failures and provenance). This differentiates it from sibling tools like jobscout_list_sources (listing sources) or jobscout_classify_jobs (classifying jobs).

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 phrase 'Search enabled providers' gives clear context for when to use this tool, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. The sibling names imply differentiation, but the description itself lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance.

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