google_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It effectively discloses the cost (5 API credits), pagination behavior (next_page_token), and the return format. This goes beyond the schema by adding behavioral context. It does not contradict any annotations (none provided). However, it could mention error conditions or rate limits.

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 mostly concise with two sentences and a return type example. However, it includes a redundant phrase '[Credits: 5 API credits per request]' that repeats the earlier statement, slightly reducing efficiency. Still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate context: cost, pagination, and return structure. It lacks explanation of error handling, rate limits, or parameter interactions. It is complete enough for basic use but has gaps for a 10-parameter tool.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it clarifies that query should be like 'jobs in london' and that next_page_token comes from a prior response. Most parameters remain as described in the schema, so no significant additional 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 it retrieves Google Jobs search results with specific fields (job titles, company names, etc.), distinguishing it from general search tools like google_search. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other job-specific tools in the sibling list (e.g., linkedin_jobs_search, indeed_scraper), so it loses a point for lack of explicit differentiation.

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 provides guidance on pagination using next_page_token and mentions the cost (5 credits), which helps in usage. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or limitations. The guidance is implied but not explicit.

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