search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that results are a list of jobs and that they are 'active' — but the schema exposes a status filter allowing completed/expired, and there is no mention of pagination behavior, auth requirements, or result limits beyond the limit param.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the object of the search and the reward context. No filler or repetition; slightly under-specified rather than padded.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description must cover behavior, and it only partially does. The 'active jobs' phrasing mildly conflicts with the status filter's completed/expired options, and nothing is said about auth, pagination, or result shape for a 7-parameter 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 7 parameters each documented (sort, type, limit, token, status, keyword, endingSoon), so the schema fully explains the inputs. The description adds no parameter detail beyond that, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('jobs') and immediately defines what a job is — 'tweet engagement campaigns with crypto rewards'. No sibling tool overlaps this space (all others are scraping, navigation, or posting), so it is unambiguous without needing to name an alternative.

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 only says the tool returns jobs you can complete to earn rewards. It gives no when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, no indication of prerequisites (e.g., connected wallet/account), and no advice on which filters matter for which goal.

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