search_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It doesn't mention any behavioral traits: whether results are paginated, whether it navigates the browser, whether authentication is required, rate limits, or what the return structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a search tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 single-sentence description is efficient and to the point with zero wasted words. It conveys the core purpose immediately. It could arguably be even more compact, but the current length is appropriate for the limited content it communicates.

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 search tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and only 33% schema coverage, the description is notably incomplete. It doesn't address parameter combinations, result format, pagination, or how filters interact. Compare to the TDQS mid example: this is a search tool where the agent needs more operational guidance that is entirely absent.

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 low at 33%, with only remote and experience having descriptions in the schema. The description says 'keywords and optional filters' but doesn't elaborate on any parameter semantics. The 'prefer remote roles' phrasing in the schema is vague (does 'prefer' mean filtering or ranking?), and the description doesn't clarify. With 33% coverage, the description should compensate but barely does.

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+resource ('Search LinkedIn jobs') and mentions keywords and optional filters. It clearly identifies what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish it from sibling tools like search_people or search_companies beyond the word 'jobs', though the resource is explicit enough that this is a minor gap.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_job or easy_apply_job. No context on when search is appropriate, what the results will be used for, or any exclusions. The description simply says what it does, not when to invoke it in a workflow.

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