search_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavior beyond that: results are condensed offers carrying a reference_number, which tells the agent the response is not the full ad and implies a follow-up call. It omits pagination/rate-limit behavior, so not a 5.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, followed immediately by the downstream routing and the reference_number linkage.

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 12-parameter, all-optional search tool with an output schema and annotations, the description covers purpose, result nature and next steps. Gaps are minor: no mention of pagination defaults or that all filters are optional, but the output schema and rich schema descriptions carry most of the load.

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 83% and the schema already documents what/where/employer/radius_km/offer_type/working_time etc. The description adds no parameter-level meaning (no syntax, defaults, or interaction hints such as radius requiring where), so the baseline 3 applies.

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 (Search) and resource (the Jobbörse of the Bundesagentur für Arbeit), and enumerates the covered content types (jobs, apprenticeships, internships). It also names the sibling tools it is not (get_job, add_application), so an agent can distinguish it from related tools without opening a 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?

Explicitly routes the agent downstream: use get_job for the full ad and add_application to record an application. The Jobbörse scoping implicitly separates it from search_courses/search_professions, but it does not state when-not-to-use or compare against those siblings explicitly, so it falls short of a 5.

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