Search Jobs

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that (search is read-only). The description adds no further behavioral context about pagination, sorting, or filter combination semantics, so it stays at baseline.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every listed filter category corresponds to real parameters, so it is efficient and easy to scan.

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 (20 optional parameters, no output schema) and the existence of multiple job-related siblings, this one-liner is a minimum-viable summary. It doesn't explain that filters combine, that all parameters are optional, or how results are returned, though individual parameter descriptions fill most of that gap.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented individually. The description's list of filter categories ('status, customer, address, contact, category, source, dates, job/PO number') is a useful summary but doesn't add new meaning beyond the schema.

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 a clear action ('Search jobs') and enumerates a broad set of filters, so an agent immediately knows this tool finds jobs by criteria. It doesn't explicitly contrast with job-specific siblings like get_job_details or get_todays_jobs, so it doesn't fully earn the top score.

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 'with flexible filters' implies this tool is for filtering jobs by various fields, which is a real usage cue. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., use get_job_details for a single known job or get_todays_jobs for today's schedule), so guidance is only implied.

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