search_jobs

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses persistence ('store anything new'), deduplication behavior, remote-status limitations, and includes a security warning about third-party data. This is unusually thorough.

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 opening sentence is crisp and the content is organized by parameter with a clear security section. It is longer than average, but nearly every sentence adds necessary operational or safety context.

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?

Covers core workflow, deduplication, portal/lane behavior, and follow-up with job_detail. However, three parameters are unexplained and the side effects of 'store anything new' on existing jobs are not fully clarified. The output schema helps but does not compensate for the missing parameter semantics.

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 0%, so the description must explain the parameters. It thoroughly explains portal, lane, and query fallback, but days, limit, and all_results are never mentioned and have no schema descriptions, leaving significant gaps.

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 action and resource: 'Search job portals and store anything new.' This distinguishes it from siblings like job_detail (which confirms remote status from posting text) and list_jobs (which likely lists already-stored jobs).

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?

Provides explicit guidance on portal auto-selection, lane semantics, behavior with no query, and when to route to job_detail. It lacks explicit 'do not use this when...' exclusions for list_jobs, but the context is strong enough for an agent to make the right call.

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