Search jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It partially discloses behavior by stating it returns 'the planned configuration and which sources could serve the query' and mentions JOB_SEARCH_MAX_JOBS and JOB_SEARCH_CONCURRENCY as constraints. However, it remains ambiguous whether it actually executes a search when sources are connected, and the main verb 'Search' may mislead. This is a partial disclosure, not a full one.

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 concise at two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, then gives the Phase 1 caveat and return behavior. It avoids redundancy, though the technical phrasing about JOB_SEARCH_MAX_JOBS and concurrency could be clearer. Overall, it is compact and well-ordered.

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?

For a tool with 5 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It explains the return type (planned configuration and sources) but does not cover parameter meanings, the actual search execution behavior, or what constitutes 'connected sources'. Essential details for correctly invoking the tool are missing.

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 0% and the description provides no information about any of the five parameters (limit, roles, keywords, workMode, locations). It doesn't explain their meaning, purpose, or how they affect the search. The description fails to compensate for the schema gap, leaving agents to guess parameter semantics.

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 connected job sources for relevant jobs' – a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from analyze_job by explicitly directing users to 'paste a job description into analyze_job instead' in Phase 1, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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 an explicit when-not and alternative: 'In Phase 1 no automated search source is connected yet — paste a job description into analyze_job instead.' However, it only implies the positive condition (when connected sources exist) rather than stating it directly, so it falls short of a full 5.

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