search_jobs

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true) and match the 'live job boards' framing, so the description is free to spend its words elsewhere, which it does: it discloses that boards are queried concurrently, that a stored profile adds a 0-100 fit score per result, and that ordering flips between best-first and newest-first. This is genuinely additive context. It does not explain the readOnlyHint=false flag, i.e. what the non-read-only side effect of a search actually is.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core action front-loaded and the conditional scoring/sorting behavior immediately after. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to guess.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be described, and the description covers the two behaviors that the schema cannot express: concurrency across boards and the profile-dependent scoring/ordering. Parameter-level filtering is left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable given 83% coverage but is the one remaining gap.

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 83%, so keywords, sources, remote_only, match_all_keywords and posted_within_days are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about any parameter (not even the fact that the remote/freshness defaults are applied), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Search live job boards') plus a scope detail ('concurrently', i.e. multiple boards queried in parallel), which an agent can hold apart from get_job or save_job. It stops short of naming a sibling or ruling one out, so it is clear but not fully differentiated from the sibling set.

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?

Usage is only implied: the reader infers 'call this when you want to find postings', and the mention that a stored profile changes scoring hints at why one might set a profile first. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no alternative (e.g. match_job_to_profile) named for the scoring case.

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