search_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description should detail behavioral traits. It only implies a read operation ('Search live job openings') but does not confirm it is non-destructive, mention rate limits, or describe side effects like external API calls. Essential behavioral context is missing.

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: a single sentence summarizing the tool's function followed by a clear list of parameters. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy. Information is front-loaded.

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 sufficiently explains how to use the parameters. Given that an output schema exists, the lack of return value details is acceptable. However, it could mention that results are aggregated from multiple boards or note potential latency, but overall it is adequate for its complexity.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning: it explains the query parameter with examples, lists allowed source values with clarifications, and defines the limit_per_source parameter with range. This compensates fully for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 job openings across free job boards.' This provides a specific verb (search), resource (job openings), and scope (across free job boards). The purpose is unambiguous and distinguishes it from siblings like find_resume or save_job.

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 context (searching for jobs) but does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons to siblings like watch_search or score_job_fit are provided, leaving the agent to infer.

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