search_jobs

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

No annotations are present, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does explain how each filter behaves (e.g., 'matched against title, tags, company and description', 'comma-separated tags that must all be present'). It also states the 'limit' controls maximum listings. However, it does not disclose side effects, ordering, or what happens with an empty query. For a read-only search tool, this is acceptable but not comprehensive.

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 concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose followed by a clean bullet list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or repetition. The front-loaded purpose allows quick comprehension.

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 search tool with 5 optional parameters and an output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation details: each parameter's meaning and behavior. It does not explain return values, but the output schema likely covers that. The only missing element is explicit usage guidance, which is tracked separately. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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 is the sole source of parameter meaning. It provides rich semantics for all five parameters: 'query' specifies fields matched, 'location' is a substring filter, 'tags' must all be present, 'source' restricts to specific sources, and 'limit' caps results. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Search job listings.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_job_details (fetch one listing) and list_saved_jobs (show saved listings). The purpose is immediately understandable and non-tautological.

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 through its parameters (e.g., filtering by query, location, tags) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. No sibling alternatives are called out. The context is inferable from the name and parameter semantics, but explicit guidance is absent.

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