Search job postings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The one added claim ('normalised postings plus the raw record') describes return shape, which the output schema already carries, and there is no mention of pagination interplay, rate limits, or auth. It adds almost nothing beyond structured fields.

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 short sentences and the core purpose is front-loaded with zero filler. Brevity is good, though it is arguably terse to the point of under-specifying a 7-parameter tool.

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 7 parameters and three siblings, one sentence is not enough: no usage routing, no mention of filters, no pagination guidance, and an ambiguous reference to 'the platform'. It leans on the output schema and annotations to carry the weight but still leaves gaps an agent must guess at.

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?

Seven parameters with only 71% schema description coverage; 'remote' and 'location' are undocumented anywhere. The description offers no parameter guidance at all — no filter semantics, no cursor-vs-page advice. Since coverage is below the 80% baseline and the description does not compensate, it scores low.

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: 'Search the platform's job postings.' An agent knows it queries postings rather than fetching one. It does not distinguish itself from get_posting or explain what 'the platform' is, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No when-to-use statement and no reference to alternatives. With siblings me and get_posting, the description never says to use search for discovery and get_posting for retrieval by identifier. The division of labour is left entirely to inference.

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