enrich_job_count

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

Annotations already cover read-only and open-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds the useful 'Cost: 2 credits' detail, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects such as whether results are capped, how criteria are combined, or what the exact return format is beyond 'number.'

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 two short, front-loaded sentences that state the core function and cost with no filler. Every word adds value, and the cost note is a practical detail that would otherwise be missing.

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?

For a simple count tool with seven optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but leaves gaps: it does not state whether all filters are optional, whether the count is exact or approximate, or describe the response shape beyond 'number.' The strong schema coverage partially compensates.

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%, with each parameter and enum having descriptive text, so the schema carries the semantic load. The description only adds a generic 'matching your criteria' phrase and does not enhance understanding of specific parameters like geo_id or search_id.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('number of job postings'), making it evident this is a count operation. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like enrich_job_search and enrich_job_profile, which imply list/detail operations.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like enrich_job_search, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The only hint is 'matching your criteria,' which implies usage but does not explain scenarios or provide comparison with sibling tools.

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