Search jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by revealing that the result is normalized, deduplicated, and includes 'source failures and provenance,' which is beyond the structured annotation coverage.

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 a single sentence that packs core functionality and key output characteristics without extraneous words. It is well front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

Despite having six parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain parameter usage, filtering semantics, pagination, or the exact shape of the response. While it mentions provenance and failures, it leaves significant gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 0%, and the description provides no explanation of any of the six parameters (query, limit, sources, location, hours_old, remote_only). The tool does not compensate for the schema gap, leaving the agent to infer parameter meaning solely from names and types.

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 identifies the action ('Search'), the resource ('enabled providers'), and the outcome ('one normalized, deduplicated pool'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling 'deduplicate' tool by explicitly mentioning deduplication as an integrated behavior.

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' implies this is used for cross-provider job searches, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over 'jobscout_list_sources' or 'jobscout_deduplicate', nor does it describe when search should not be used.

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