careers_employers

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds only modest value. 'Live filter catalog' hints that results reflect current data, and 'optional name search' clarifies how the query parameter is interpreted, but there is no deeper disclosure about pagination or data freshness.

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 a single focused sentence with no filler words. It front-loads the core action and then briefly names both parameter mechanisms, earning every word it uses.

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 output schema exists and annotations are strong, the description is minimally sufficient for a default call with no parameters. However, an agent is left to infer which filter fields are valid, how to combine query with filters, and whether pagination behavior matters, so the description does not fully support complex intended uses.

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 carries the burden of explaining parameters. It covers two of the four parameters conceptually: 'name search' maps to query, and 'live filter catalog' suggests filters. However, limit and offset are not mentioned, and the description does not explain how to construct valid filter objects beyond what the nested schema definition provides.

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 names a specific resource (employers) and a clear mechanism (live filter catalog and optional name search). It is distinguishable from the singular careers_employer tool, though it does not explicitly say 'list employers' or 'search employers', relying on 'research' as a somewhat broad verb.

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 gives a general context for use ('Research employers') but provides no guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools such as careers_employer, careers_jobs, or careers_filters. There are no exclusions, alternative recommendations, or conditions that would help an agent route to the correct tool.

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