Search jobs

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the burden is lighter. The description still adds value beyond them: the pagination contract via has_more/next_cursor, the filter semantics (state filter drops records with no state), and the presentation instruction to emit urls as markdown links. It does not disclose rate limits or result-ordering behavior.

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-loaded with the trigger condition, then a compact filter list, then return fields, then pagination, then exclusions. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction and none are redundant with each other.

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, the description need not enumerate return shapes, yet it still names the key row fields for planning. Pagination, filter interactions, and routing to sibling tools are all covered, leaving nothing an agent needs to call this 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds operational guidance the schema lacks: the example values, the instruction to pass several NAICS codes in one call, and the note that matched_naics identifies which code hit. It also clarifies that 'agency' means the employer, which is not derivable from the schema alone.

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?

Opens with a specific trigger ('the user is looking for a job, or for hiring signals') plus a concrete resource and scope ('postings from the last 30 days'). It also names the sibling tools it is not (search_contracts, search_grants), so an agent can disambiguate without opening schemas.

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?

Explicit when-to-use, explicit when-not-to-use with the alternative tools named, and a worked example (keyword="electrician", state="TX"). The pagination rule ('call again with cursor=next_cursor and the same filters') is a clear operational condition.

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