enrich_job_search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the operational detail of cost: 'Cost: 2 credits,' which is useful. However, it does not disclose output shape, pagination behavior, or edge cases such as empty results.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by filter categories and cost. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no unnecessary repetition or clutter.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns and any relevant usage constraints. It states it searches job postings and mentions filters/cost, but it doesn't describe the response format or how to combine filters effectively. This is sufficient for basic usage but leaves gaps for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

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?

The input schema covers all 7 parameters with descriptions and enums, so the 100% schema coverage sets a baseline of 3. The description loosely maps filters to parameters (company, type, experience level, location), but it adds little beyond the schema and uses vague terms like 'and more.'

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Search for job postings.' It also enumerates main filter dimensions such as company, type, experience level, and location. However, 'and more' is vague, and the description doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling job tools like enrich_job_profile or enrich_job_count.

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 phrase 'Search for job postings' implies when the tool should be used, but the description gives no explicit guidance about alternatives or when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that enrich_job_profile would be used to get details on a specific job posting. This is acceptable but minimal.

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