job_search_sources

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Return information' strongly implies a read-only, non-destructive operation, but it doesn't explicitly disclose whether any side effects or authentication are involved. For a zero-parameter tool, this is adequate but not rich in behavioral detail.

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?

A single, focused sentence that states the tool's function without any filler. Every word contributes to clarity, and there is no unnecessary elaboration.

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 the tool's simplicity (zero parameters, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does. It correctly orients the agent to the tool's purpose without needing to describe return values (schema covers that).

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description needs to explain nothing about parameter usage. Per the baseline for no parameters, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description simply doesn't need to add parameter-level detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and clear resource ('information about the job boards used by this server'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It distinguishes itself naturally from sibling tool 'search_jobs' by focusing on board metadata rather than job listings.

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 implies usage context—when you need details about job boards, not when searching jobs—but it doesn't explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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