Google Jobs search

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: billing ($2/1,000 jobs, $1.50 on paid plans, plus $0.03 per search), a per-call cap of 100, and the aggregated source set. It omits auth requirements and whether results are cached or live.

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?

Front-loads the resource and its coverage, then moves to return shape, filters, limits and cost in a logical order. The enumerated return fields are dense but earn their place because no output schema exists. Slightly long, but no sentence is filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (title, company, location, remote flag, source, posting date, employment type, parsed salary, excerpt, qualifications, apply links). All 7 parameters are documented in the schema, and billing/limits are disclosed. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is 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 100% with enums on country, date_posted and employment_type, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description only restates the filter dimensions (date posted, employment type, remote) and the 1–100 range without adding syntax or format detail. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb (Search) and resource (Google Jobs) and immediately scopes it: aggregates listings from LinkedIn, Indeed, Glassdoor and company sites across 26 countries. This is unambiguously distinct from every sibling (search_flights, search_hotels, search_google_shopping, etc.), which cover other verticals.

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?

Explains the available narrowing options (date posted, employment type, remote only) and the 100-job ceiling, and the cost line implicitly tells the agent to request only what it needs. It stops short of stating when this tool is preferable to a sibling or any exclusion, but the sibling set has no overlapping resource, so the gap is minor.

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