find_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only hints that a search may still be running. It never states whether the call blocks, what it returns (new results vs. status), whether it writes data to the site, or rate-limit/auth constraints.

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?

A single tightly-worded sentence with the primary action front-loaded. It wastes no words but is under-specified rather than genuinely concise.

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?

A two-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters needs more than one parenthetical sentence to be callable correctly.

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?

Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate and does not: 'source' is never mentioned, and only the phrase 'check on a search already running' loosely gestures at the polling semantics of wait_seconds.

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 the job sites'), so an agent can tell it initiates a job search. It doesn't differentiate itself from siblings like list_jobs or job_details, which is where it falls short of a 5.

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 parenthetical '(or check on a search already running)' implies two usage modes — trigger a new search or poll an in-flight one — but names no alternatives or selection criteria against siblings such as list_jobs or job_details.

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