jobs_compare

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses important non-obvious behaviors: external jobs must be analyzed first because FoundRole does not have posting facts otherwise, references must be exact, order must be preserved, and duplicates are not allowed. These are operational constraints that materially affect invocation, and they are clearly stated. No contradiction with annotations.

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 compact: two paragraphs with three sentences total. The first sentence front-loads the core action and fields. The second paragraph provides necessary constraints in a structured, easy-to-follow manner. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff or repetition of schema details.

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 is simple (one parameter), has an output schema, and comes with annotations. The description covers the essential context: what inputs are valid, what the prerequisite is, and what constraints apply. The return value is not described, but an output schema exists and the comparison fields are already listed. This is complete for the tool's 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?

Although the schema already provides a decent description of comparison_refs, the tool description adds significant meaning: the accepted values are exact IDs from jobs_search and exact URLs from jobs_analyze_external, the prerequisite to analyze external jobs, and the requirements to preserve order and avoid duplicates. This goes well beyond the schema's item description and makes the parameter semantics unambiguous.

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 'Compares 2 to 4 jobs side by side' using specific analysis fields, making the verb and resource explicit. It differentiates from sibling tools by referencing jobs_search and jobs_analyze_external as input sources, which is exactly what distinguishes this comparison tool from search, details, or external analysis tools.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: comparing 2 to 4 jobs. It specifies that inputs must be exact FoundRole IDs from jobs_search or external comparisonRef URLs from jobs_analyze_external, and includes a critical prerequisite: analyze external jobs before comparing. It also gives behavioral instructions like preserving order and avoiding duplicates, which helps the agent know how to construct the request.

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