search_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral transparency. It adds useful context such as partial matching for reg and technician and the 'open' status alias, but it does not disclose traits like sorting, pagination, or read-only guarantees. The search nature implies non-destructive behavior, but it is not explicitly stated.

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 and well-structured: a single opening sentence followed by a bulleted list of parameters. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or 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?

The description covers all parameters and includes helpful examples, making it functionally complete for most use cases. It does not mention result ordering or pagination behavior, but the presence of an output schema fills in return-value details, so this is a minor gap.

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?

The description fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage. Each parameter is explained with valid values, examples, and semantics (e.g., status accepts specific strings and 'open' as a shortcut for unfinished jobs; reg and technician support partial matches). This provides essential 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Search job cards in the workshop.' It uses a specific verb (search) and resource (job cards), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like vehicle_history and parts_availability, making the purpose 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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks any mention of sibling tools, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without clear direction for selection.

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