scrape_jobs

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

Annotations already establish readOnly and openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds genuine operational detail: ~1 request/second rate limiting, intentional slowness on large jobs, and hard caps of 5 pages and 25 detail pages. It does not describe how partial failures or truncation are reported.

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?

Front-loads the one-line purpose, then operational constraints, then a clean Args block. Every sentence carries information; the Args repetition of values also present in the schema is the only mild redundancy.

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 an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers the behaviorally risky aspects (rate limits, caps, detail fetching). The remaining incompleteness is the undocumented filter parameters, largely papered over by the search_jobs reference.

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 coverage is 0% and six of nine parameters (query, remote, category, location, salary_min, salary_period) are documented only implicitly via 'same filters as search_jobs'. The three documented parameters get useful semantics (1-5 pages at 20 offers each, 1-25 detail pages), which partly compensates but leaves a substantial gap.

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 and resource ('Collect many search results at once') with the optional details qualifier, and references the sibling search_jobs to anchor the filter set. It distinguishes itself as the bulk/aggregating variant, though it never explicitly contrasts with search_jobs beyond 'same filters'.

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?

'Same filters as search_jobs' tells the agent this is an alternative route and implies shared semantics, and the rate-limit/cap notes give clear operational context for when this tool is viable. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the bulk framing makes the intended use case obvious.

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