im_search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states that results contain requirement summaries but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, or that the tool is read-only. Minimal transparency beyond basic functionality.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states purpose and filters, the second describes the return. Front-loaded and efficient.

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 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is brief but covers core purpose. However, it lacks details on pagination (limit behavior), result ordering, or how to handle empty results. Also does not help distinguish from sibling tools, leaving context gaps for an agent.

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?

The description reinforces the filter parameters (title, department, location, status) that are already documented in the schema with 60% coverage. It does not add new details for the 'limit' parameter or explain enum values. Adequate but not compensating for missing schema descriptions.

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 IntelliMatch job requisitions by specific filters (title, department, location, status) and returns open positions with requirement summaries. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like im_get_job or im_get_open_jobs_db, which have overlapping functionality.

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 usage for searching jobs by multiple criteria but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like im_get_job (single job) or im_get_open_jobs_db (list all open jobs). No when-not or alternative tool names are mentioned.

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