Search jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions optional sources (Adzuna/USAJobs) and filter capabilities, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior, rate limits, pagination, or how results are aggregated. The 'Search' verb implies a non-destructive operation, but without explicit disclosure it remains somewhat vague.

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 three concise sentences with no filler. The first lists sources, the second outlines filter capabilities, and the third states the primary use case. Every sentence carries useful information.

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 description covers sources, filters, and target use case. Since there is no output schema, it could have mentioned the return format or pagination, and it lacks a pointer to list_sources for source discovery. However, for a search tool with seven optional parameters, it provides sufficient orientation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description summarizes filter types (free-text, location, seniority, remote-only, date) and hints at minSeniority usage ('Ideal for scouting senior/leadership roles'), but adds no new semantic details beyond the schema.

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 job openings, explicitly enumerating the sources covered and mentioning it is ideal for senior/leadership roles. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_company_jobs (specific companies) and list_sources (source enumeration).

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 gives clear context: use when you want to search across multiple enabled sources, with an emphasis on senior roles. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, such as pointing to list_company_jobs for company-specific searches.

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