search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions a maximum of ~50 results per page but does not disclose authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or other behavioral traits expected for a data retrieval tool.

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 well-structured with a brief opening and an Args list. It is concise, with no extraneous information, though it could be slightly more streamlined.

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?

An output schema exists, so return value details are not required. Parameter descriptions are complete, but missing usage guidelines and behavioral transparency reduces overall completeness. For a tool with moderate complexity, this is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 effectively compensates by explaining each parameter: query with example, location as optional with example, country with default and context (Adzuna supported), and results_per_page with max limit. This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 states 'Search live job postings', which is a clear verb+resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_job_categories or parse_resume, but does not explicitly contrast with search_and_match, leaving minor ambiguity.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for searching job postings but does not provide when-not-to-use or exclude scenarios, leaving the agent without sufficient context.

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