job104_search

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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency. It only says 'search' which implies a read operation, but it does not disclose that results are paginated, how pagination works, or any other behavioral traits such as rate limits or data volume. The description adds no value beyond the schema's parameter hints.

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 extremely concise, a single sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words. Every word 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations. The description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of job listings) or any additional context needed to use it effectively. While the parameter schema is complete, the overall description leaves gaps in understanding the tool's behavior and results, making it less than minimally viable for an agent.

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 already provides descriptions for all three parameters (keyword, page, location), covering 100% of them. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics. According to the rubric, when schema description coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 tool's function: '搜尋 104 人力銀行的職缺' (search job openings on 104 Job Bank). It uses a specific verb ('搜尋') and resource ('104人力銀行的職缺'), and it is distinguishable from sibling tools like 'job104_get_details' and 'job104_prepare_application'.

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 no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. The functionality itself implies that searching is the first step before getting details or preparing an application, but this is not stated. No exclusions or alternative recommendations are provided.

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