Google Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: a credit cost of 1 per call, and the fact that pagination exists. It does not cover rate limits, result caps, or what the scraper does when no listings are found, so it is helpful but not rich.

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?

Three compact sentences with the purpose front-loaded, and the credit-cost note placed last where it is easy to find. The opening 'Google Jobs.' merely restates the title and is wasted space. Otherwise, there is no padding.

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?

With 13 parameters, a scraper behavior, and pagination to handle, the definition is thin: it never explains that next_page_token drives paging, nor that it is a paid call whose filters (ltype, lrad, uds) are optional refinements. The complete schema and the annotations compensate for much of the gap, and no output schema exists to explain return values. Adequate, but not fully sufficient for a tool of this complexity.

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 13 parameters, including the conflicting location/uule pair and the next_page_token, are documented in the structured data. The description only alludes to title/company/location fields and pagination, adding essentially no syntax or constraint detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Scrape Google Jobs results via API') plus the kind of data returned (structured job listings with title, company, location) and pagination support. That is a clear, concrete purpose. It stops short of distinguishing itself from nearby siblings such as google_search or google_news, so it falls just 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like google_search or google_maps. The only contextual signal is the credit cost, which tells the agent about expense but not about tool selection. An agent must infer from the name alone when this tool is the right choice.

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