job_search_recruitments

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

The description discloses non-obvious client-side filtering behavior for certain parameters, which is a key behavioral trait. It also implies server-side filtering via other parameters. No annotations are provided, so the description handles transparency well, though it could mention rate limits or data freshness.

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 fairly concise, with two sentences covering purpose, filtering options, and important caveats. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

Given 11 parameters and no output schema, the description covers filtering, client-side behavior, and pagination hints. However, it does not mention authentication, return format, or total count, but it is still adequately complete for an API-like tool.

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 having a description. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining that instNmKeyword/titleKeyword are client-side filters and suggesting the use of server-side filters and referencing job_get_codes for code values.

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 that the tool queries job postings from public institutions, with specific filtering options. It uses the verb '조회합니다' (inquiries/retrieves), and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool job_get_codes, which provides code definitions.

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 explicit guidance: use job_get_codes for code values, and warns that instNmKeyword/titleKeyword are client-side filters, advising to increase numOfRows or use server-side filters like pblntInstCd for broader searches. This clearly differentiates when and how to use parameters.

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