search_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It covers pagination cursors, default limit/count behavior, the extra query cost of count=true, and include_description being excluded by default. It does not mention auth/rate limits, but these are not critical for a read-only search, and the output schema covers return shape.

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 front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, then a concise pagination note, then a clear bulleted arg list. For a tool with 22 parameters, it is well-organized and every line provides necessary information without filler.

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?

For a complex 22-parameter search tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description is highly complete. It explains pagination, parameter dependencies, defaults, and behavioral caveats. Combined with the output schema, an agent has enough information to invoke search_jobs correctly.

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 fully compensate. It documents all 22 parameters with specific meanings, allowed enum values (remote_type, experience_level, employment_type), syntax for max_age, and semantic details like location being used only when no IDs are provided. This goes far beyond the raw 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 opens with 'Search for jobs using the CleanJobData API,' which clearly states the verb ('search') and the resource ('jobs'). It is distinct from siblings like get_job (fetching a single job) and search_companies (searching companies), so an agent can easily differentiate when to select this tool.

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?

While the description provides useful usage context (e.g., pagination cursor flow, suggest_locations for IDs, and sort_by requiring title), it does not explicitly compare against alternatives or state when not to use search_jobs versus get_job or search_companies. The appropriate use is implied rather than directly contrasted.

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