search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, and the description does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. The verb 'Search' implies a safe operation, but the description leaves behavioral traits (auth, rate limits, side effects) entirely implicit. With no annotations, more explicit disclosure would improve transparency.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no unnecessary words. The first sentence directly states the action and scope, and the second provides actionable guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 has 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what 'lightweight previews' contain, how pagination works (cursor), or that search is case-insensitive over specific fields. While the schema fills some gaps, the description should provide a high-level overview of behavior and return structure.

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 90%, so the input schema already documents most parameters well. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond saying it returns 'metadata and lightweight previews', which is not tied to individual parameters. Thus, the description provides minimal added value 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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'historical external-agent jobs', and specifies it returns metadata and lightweight previews. It distinguishes from sibling 'job_result' by directing users to that tool for full artifacts.

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 explicitly advises 'Use job_result for full artifacts', providing a direct pointer to an alternative. However, it does not address when to use this tool versus other siblings like 'agent_status' or 'cancel_jobs', so some context is missing.

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