search_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search for jobs across various job listing websites,' but does not mention that the tool performs live network requests to third-party sites, may require proxies/timeout settings, or could be slow. Key behavioral traits such as output format, mutation potential, and side effects are absent.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words and is front-loaded. However, it is perhaps too terse for a tool with 21 parameters, though that shortfall is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.

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 21 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, placing a heavy burden on the description to explain what the search returns, how results are structured, and what sites are covered. The description only says 'Search for jobs across various job listing websites' and does not address return value shape, default behaviors, or operational constraints, leaving significant gaps.

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 86% (well above 80%), so the baseline is 3 even without param detail in the description. The one-line description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already documents most parameters well, and the description does not actively mislead.

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 uses a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource ('jobs across various job listing websites'), making the core action understandable. However, it does not differentiate from any sibling tools (none are listed), so it falls short of a perfect score for distinction.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no context about typical use cases, and no exclusions. It simply states the broad function, leaving the agent to infer when it is appropriate.

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