Export Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral detail beyond them: pagination semantics (page shorter than limit is the last), row size in characters, and the fact that raw_text and extracted_json are omitted. Return format is only partially covered (no output schema).

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?

Dense but front-loaded: purpose first, then pagination, then payload shape, then parameter formats. Every sentence carries information, though the parenthetical asides add some length without changing agent behavior.

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 6-param read-only export with no output schema, the description supplies the pagination contract, row-size expectations, and omitted fields, which is what an agent needs to call it. The only shortfall is the undocumented level and role_category filters.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load. It documents limit (default 10, max 50), offset, since (ISO YYYY-MM-DD), and skill (case-insensitive substring), which is most of the parameter surface. However, the level and role_category filters are left entirely unexplained, which is a real gap for a 6-param tool.

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 and resource (export jobs), the ordering and payload shape (newest first, extracted fields, nested skills), and the intent (open-ended analysis). It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_job, which returns raw_text and extracted_json for a single posting, so an agent can route without opening the schema.

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?

Frames the use case (open-ended analysis, bulk export) and names get_job as the single-posting alternative. It stops short of explicit exclusions against sibling list_jobs, so the when-not-to-use case is inferred rather than stated.

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