Get Job Search Brief

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: warnings are never guessed, work-auth values are verbatim, persona may be empty, failed runs do not count toward last_runs, sync.role is null when off, and work_auth_market is kept for one release. This is exactly the extra context the annotations do not provide.

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 main purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and every sentence describes return semantics or workflow scope. The paragraph is dense and could be easier to scan as a list, but given the absence of an output schema, the length is largely justified.

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 and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the brief contains, and it does so thoroughly: profile constraints, persona, resume summaries, role mix, skills, build areas, referrals, counts, sync state, and answer level. Safety behavior is already covered by annotations.

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?

There are zero input parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description instead spends its space explaining return-field semantics, which is valuable but not part of the input-parameter dimension.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Read the server-composed job-search brief") and enumerates the exact contents, so an agent can tell it apart from sibling tools like get_career_context or list_jobs without opening a schema. It also names its role as the entry point of the workflow.

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?

It explicitly states when to use it — "the entry point of the agentic job-search workflow" — and defines a boundary: "applying is outside its scope." However, it does not name sibling alternatives or explicit when-not conditions beyond that boundary.

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