job-search

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

The description discloses the data source, pricing, and the maximum number of results (10). It does not mention authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is idempotent. Additionally, there is a confusion: the schema description for 'tag' says 'Required.' but the schema does not enforce it, which could mislead on parameter behavior.

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 concise at 4 sentences, front-loading the core functionality. It could be slightly restructured for clarity (e.g., separating pricing), but overall it is efficient without redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the return fields and data source. It misses details on error handling, no-results scenarios, and the requirement of the 'tag' parameter, but covers the essential aspects for a search tool.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by specifying that listings are remote/hybrid and listing return fields, which enhances understanding 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?

The description clearly states that the tool searches for remote and hybrid job listings by keyword and location, and lists the specific return fields. It also mentions the data source (jobicy.com) and pricing, making the purpose unmistakable and differentiating it from other tools.

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 implies usage for job searching and specifies the covered industries (tech, finance, healthcare, marketing). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide alternatives, leaving potential ambiguity for the agent.

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