search_recruitments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that query with org name auto-interprets, cancelled notices are excluded by default (with include_cancelled), and use_snapshot reads from a local snapshot. However, it does not disclose if the tool is read-only, auth requirements, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. Moderate transparency.

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 a single paragraph but well-structured with clear line breaks for filters and options. It is fairly concise given the number of parameters and conveys essential information without unnecessary verbosity.

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 description covers the main search functionality, filter details, sort options, and snapshot feature. However, it lacks descriptions for a few parameters (ongoing_only, work_region_code, limit) and does not explain the return format or output schema. Given the complexity (15 parameters, no output schema), it is somewhat incomplete.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains many parameters (query, org_code, region, ncs, hire_type, recruit_type, education, pref, closing_within_days, sort, include_cancelled, use_snapshot). However, it does not explain ongoing_only, work_region_code, or limit. Partial coverage, but adds value beyond schema.

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 searches public institution job announcements, and explains the main parameter org_code and query interpretation. It is specific about the resource (recruitments) and verb (search). However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like analyze_recruitments, but the purpose is clear enough.

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 usage context for many filters and sort options, and explains the use_snapshot parameter for API limit avoidance. However, it does not mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like analyze_recruitments, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites.

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