Search recruiter jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds that it returns a 'paginated list with salary, company, location, and a tracked apply URL,' providing some behavioral context beyond annotations. However, it does not discuss rate limits, caching, or other nuances that could be important.

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 consists of two short sentences. The first sentence defines the core purpose, and the second lists key features and return fields. No extraneous information. Perfectly front-loaded and 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 complexity (15 parameters, rich schema, output schema present), the description adequately covers the tool's scope and what it returns. It mentions pagination and key fields. Minor omission: default sort order and pagination details are only in the schema, but the description is still complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, all 15 parameters are already well-documented in the input schema. The description provides a high-level summary of filtering capabilities but does not add significant new meaning or examples beyond what the schema offers. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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's purpose: 'Search live recruiter and talent-acquisition job listings on Recruiter Roles.' It specifies the resource (job listings), the action (search), and the context (recruiter and talent-acquisition). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_company or get_job, which target individual entities.

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 by listing supported filters (sector, location, etc.) and return fields, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_companies or get_job. No when-not guidance is provided. The context is clear enough for a basic understanding, but explicit alternatives are missing.

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