Search Quera jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely behavioral facts beyond them: fixed 15-per-page pagination and AND-combination of filters. It omits how an agent knows results are exhausted (e.g., short page) and whether page has a hard cap, which the schema carries but the description does not surface.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the operation and scope, then pagination, then result handling. Each sentence carries distinct information with no filler; 'Quera Magnet' is the only slightly opaque term that is left unexplained.

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 an 11-parameter, all-optional search tool with no output schema, the description covers the essentials: what it returns (job listings with ids), page size for pagination, and how filters interact. The main gap is termination signals and whether empty pages or a total count indicate the end of results.

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 100%, so baseline would be 3, but 'Filters combine with AND' adds cross-parameter semantics that no individual field description conveys — an agent knows multiple filters narrow rather than widen. It still does not clarify edge cases such as empty-string versus null filters, so it stops short of a 5.

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: 'Search open tech jobs on Quera Magnet', which an agent can distinguish from qr_job (single job detail) and qr_companies. The final clause 'Each result has an id for qr_job' implicitly separates search from retrieval, though it never names the sibling tool explicitly as the detail counterpart.

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?

Usage is only implied: the id-for-qr_job note and the schema's references to qr_job_filters suggest a search-then-drill-down workflow, so an agent can infer the sequence. However, there is no explicit 'use this when…/not when…' and no statement that this is the listing entry point versus qr_job.

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