careers_jobs

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

Annotations already signal readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description reinforces this with 'No applications or favorites are changed.' It adds non-obvious behavioral details: default status filtering, Europe/Madrid timezone handling, live filter behavior, and the requirement to reuse the same query when following next_offset.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds operational value: filter semantics, default statuses, pagination, timezone, and safety. There is no repetition of schema details or annotation content.

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 an output schema, the description covers the essential operational context: prerequisite tool, filter composition rules, pagination, status defaults, timezone, and non-destructive behavior. Nothing critical an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining the complex filter semantics: OR within a field, AND across fields, ranges via from/to, and exclusions via exclude=true. It also explains all_statuses and next_offset usage. It does not explicitly cover query, sort, source, or limit, but those are self-evident from their names and schema enums/constraints.

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 opens with 'Search opportunities with live typed server-side filters', naming a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling tools like careers_job or careers_employers by positioning itself as the search/list operation.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use careers_filters first', providing an ordering constraint and prerequisite. It also tells the agent when to use all_statuses for application history and how to paginate with next_offset, giving concrete guidance beyond mere capability.

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