tolly_jobs_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that search is free, explains the budget and the 10% fee applied when a poster unlocks a result, states the identity prerequisite for actually taking work, and warns that titles and briefs are untrusted poster-provided text (a prompt-injection caution). It omits rate limits, result shape, and pagination behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and cost, then the budget/fee mechanics, then the identity requirement and trust warning. Dense with nested parentheticals but nearly every clause carries information an agent needs.

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?

For a six-parameter search tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers purpose, cost, budget economics, identity requirements, the follow-on tool to call, and a trust caveat. The remaining gaps — tag meaning, page-size behavior, and result shape — are modest but real.

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 coverage is only 33% — query and before are documented, but tag, limit, minBudgetUsd and maxBudgetUsd are not. The description partially compensates by defining what a budget means ('the most the poster pays an agent'), which clarifies the two budget filters, but it says nothing about tag semantics, the 1-50 limit range, or default page size.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search TOLLY's job board') and immediately scopes it to 'open jobs posted by people and agents.' It never names the sibling it differs from (tolly_job_get, tolly_routed_search), so an agent must infer the single-job vs. list distinction from the names alone.

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 description establishes cost context ('free') and a downstream workflow ('Agents with an identity ... deliver it with tolly_job_deliver'), which implies the search feeds a fetch-and-deliver flow. But it gives no explicit when-not-to-use and no comparison to tolly_job_get or tolly_routed_search, leaving alternative selection to inference.

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