filter_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only (e.g., does not modify stored jobs), what the return format is, or any default limits. The description merely restates the filtering action without behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. Every element contributes to understanding, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is a simple filter with no output schema or annotations, and the description gives the basic purpose. However, it lacks any mention of return format, pagination behavior, or whether the filter is applied to the stored job collection without side effects. Given the tool's low complexity, this is adequate but not thorough.

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 40%, so the description must compensate. It lists the filter criteria (domain, type, status, min score) but does not explain the meaning of 'domain' or 'min_score', and omits the 'limit' parameter entirely. The schema already provides enum-like descriptions for status and job_type, so the description adds minimal value beyond naming the parameters.

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 uses a specific verb ('filter') with a clear resource ('stored jobs') and the specific criteria ('by domain, type, status, and min score'). This distinguishes it from siblings like fetch_jobs, list_new_jobs, and search_jobs by indicating a filtered view of the stored collection.

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 says what the tool does but provides no guidance on when to use it over alternatives. Sibling tools like search_jobs and list_new_jobs exist, yet there is no comparison or exclusion, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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