Search Naukri.com jobs (India)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world and non-destructive traits, yet the description adds genuinely new operational context: it runs a specific Apify Actor on the caller's account, costs roughly $0.0015 per job, and enforces a $0.5 per-call spend cap. It also flags the include_details speed/fidelity tradeoff. Rate limits and failure behavior are not covered, 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, no filler: the first front-loads what is returned, the second front-loads cost and execution mechanism. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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 six-parameter tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the missing pieces an agent needs: cost model, spend ceiling, account requirement, and the details-on/off latency tradeoff. It stops short of mapping itself against competing job-search siblings, which is the main remaining gap.

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 every parameter is already documented in the schema and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds only a light gloss — '(with details)' for include_details and the list of fields that toggle with it — without clarifying formats for query, location, or date_posted_days beyond the schema.

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+resource+scope: job listings from Naukri.com filtered by keyword and city, plus the exact fields returned. The Naukri/India framing implicitly separates it from the other job-board siblings (search_indeed_jobs, get_company_jobs, find_remote_jobs), but it never names or routes against them explicitly.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for India-based job searches because the description says 'India's largest job board.' There is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-a-sibling guidance and no stated exclusions (e.g. remote-only roles, company-specific lookups).

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