search_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond 'List/filter', which is already implied by the name and annotations, so it neither contradicts nor enriches.

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?

Two short sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states purpose, the second gives a targeted usage hint. 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?

Despite having an output schema and safe annotations, the description is too sparse for a search tool with 6 optional parameters. It doesn't explain how parameters relate to filtering behavior, nor does it differentiate from get_job for retrieving a single job. The guidance about 'whats_on_the_schedule' helps but leaves many usage questions unanswered.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate by explaining parameters, but it only says 'List/filter jobs'. The parameter names (limit, offset, keyword, dates, customer_id) are somewhat self-explanatory, but ambiguous aspects like what fields 'keyword' searches or date formats are not clarified.

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 'List/filter jobs' clearly states the verb and resource, making the tool's purpose obvious. It also distinguishes from siblings by directing users to 'whats_on_the_schedule' for owner questions, though it doesn't explicitly define scope limitations beyond that.

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 instruction 'Prefer whats_on_the_schedule for owner questions' provides an explicit alternative for a specific use case, offering some when-not guidance. However, it doesn't mention other sibling tools like get_job or search_customers, so guidance is limited.

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