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 useful behavioral context: returns compact summaries designed for large result sets, includes specific slug and hiring_pipeline_id fields, and explains how slugs map to app URLs. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 three sentences, each with a distinct purpose: the first states the tool's function, the second gives filtering and chaining guidance, and the third explains return fields and URL usage. Every sentence earns its place without 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?

For a 35-parameter search tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's search intent, key related tools (list_users, list_candidate_hiring_stages), and return values. It could explicitly contrast with list_jobs for full completeness, but the overall guidance is solid.

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 all 35 parameters are already documented. The description repeats the owner_id filter guidance but does not add new meaning to individual parameters; its value lies in the return fields and usage chaining rather than parameter semantics.

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 'Search Recruit CRM jobs and return compact summaries designed for large result sets,' specifying the verb (search), resource (jobs), and a distinct purpose (compact summaries for large result sets) that differentiates it from list_jobs or get_job_details. It also lists the return fields and URL usage, further clarifying its role.

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 gives explicit usage context: filter by owner_id after resolving user IDs with list_users, and use hiring_pipeline_id with list_candidate_hiring_stages for stage lookup. It does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool versus alternatives like list_jobs, so a 5 is not warranted.

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