search_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It honestly notes that results are real, currently open, and refreshed daily, and that no API key is needed. However, it does not reveal potential limitations like pagination, rate limits, or that coverage is limited to the listed ATS platforms, nor does it describe the output format. These gaps are notable for a tool with no output schema.

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 two concise sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence states the core purpose and domain specifics, and the second provides a key prerequisite (no API key). Every word earns its place, and the main verb is front-loaded.

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 the tool has 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a reasonable overview but omits the return format and any caveats about result limits or coverage scope. An agent could call it correctly based on the schema, but might not know what to expect in the response. This is an adequate but not fully complete description.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 7 parameters (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter-level detail. It adds no extra meaning beyond the schema definitions, which is acceptable given high coverage, but it also doesn't offer clarifications like the default limit or example values that might help.

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 the tool searches real, currently-open job postings from specific ATS sources across thousands of companies. The verb 'search' and resource 'job postings' are specific, and the mention of sources and freshness adds clarity. However, it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling tool get_company_jobs, though the general search scope implies a difference.

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 provides useful context (aggregated, refreshed daily, no API key required) that implies general usage, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus the alternative get_company_jobs. There are no exclusions or conditions, but the purpose is clear enough to infer typical use for broad job searching.

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