search_work_experiences

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions that results include a resume_id field. It lacks details on pagination, ordering, case-insensitivity beyond schema, or limits. This is insufficient for a search tool.

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 two sentences, clearly structured with the purpose first and the result field second. Every sentence adds value with no 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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one required param) and presence of an output schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks information on search behavior (e.g., whether it searches across all fields with OR logic) and no mention of edge cases or limitations.

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%, but the description adds meaning by specifying the fields searched (company name, position title, achievement descriptions) and the case-insensitive nature, which goes beyond the schema description. This helps the agent understand the search scope.

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 it searches work experiences by specific fields (company name, position title, achievement descriptions), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_resumes or search_achievements. The verb 'search' is appropriate, and the resource 'work experiences' is specific.

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 using the tool when you have a text query to find work experiences, but it does not explicitly state when to use search vs. list_work_experiences or get_work_experience. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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