nc_search_job_offers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Search', implying a read operation, but does not disclose any specifics like whether results are paginated, sorted, or limited in any way. It also doesn't mention any side effects or special behavior, leaving the agent with minimal insight into how the tool behaves.

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 a single short sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified rather than concisely informative. It lacks key details (e.g., what the results look like) while being brief. It is not bloated, but its brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the tool returns. It does not mention return format, whether it returns full job details, pagination behavior, or any sorting options. For a search tool with multiple filters, this is a significant gap, making the description incomplete for an agent to understand expected results.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides. Per the baseline rule for high coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles parameter semantics.

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 clearly states the tool searches for job offers from the official New Caledonia employment portal. It uses a specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource ('job offers'). Although it doesn't differentiate from siblings, there is no other job-search tool among them, so the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 provides context (official portal) but no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Since no sibling tool targets job offers, a clear distinction is unnecessary, but the description still lacks any statement about when not to use it or what makes it the preferred choice for job-related queries.

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