search_germany_jobs

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It fails to disclose what the tool actually returns, whether it performs live searches across feeds/reddit/google, if results are limited to German sources, or any caveats about coverage. The 'sources' mention hints at behavior but does not explain the full operational profile.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, usage guidance second, then a brief structured Args block. The examples are helpful and not excessive, though the Args section could be slightly tighter.

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 simple search tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation need: topic area, sample queries, and parameter basics. It lacks explicit exclusions, alternative tool routing, or behavioral caveats, but it is minimally adequate given the low parameter count and available output schema.

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%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It does add useful semantics: 'query' is illustrated with examples and 'sources' is described as comma-separated. However, it does not enumerate valid source values or explain how the default 'feeds,reddit,google' behaves, leaving some ambiguity.

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 a specific verb ('Search') and a clear resource scope: 'Germany job market, visa, and expat topics.' Concrete examples like 'Blue Card changes' and 'Berlin startups hiring' make the tool's domain unmistakable and help distinguish it from siblings like get_germany_news or search_ai_news.

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 explicitly says 'Use when the user asks about specific topics like...' and supplies realistic query examples. It gives clear context for when to invoke the tool, though it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name direct alternatives among the sibling tools.

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