careers_searches

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: local presets are shared with iecareers, show/run modes require a name, and pagination via next_offset is needed for complete lists. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 three tight sentences. It front-loads the core purpose, then provides the two most important operational constraints (name requirement and pagination) without wasted words. Every sentence contributes information an agent needs.

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 tool with four parameters and multiple view modes, the description covers the main operational contract: safe read-only behavior, view modes, name requirements, and pagination. Since an output schema exists, return-value documentation is not necessary. Minor gaps like the precise meaning of 'limit' and 'offset' keep it from being fully complete.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does explain the crucial behavior around 'name' (required for show/run) and maps view modes to actions ('run', 'portal', 'show'). However, it leaves 'limit' and 'offset' semantically under-explained, only hinting at pagination through 'next_offset'. This is meaningful but incomplete compensation.

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 identifies the tool's resource ('career search presets') and enumerates the supported operations: read presets, run a preset, or inspect portal saved searches. It uses a specific verb-resource combination and the named behaviors distinguish it from sibling tools like careers_save_search or careers_check_search.

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 practical guidance: 'No baseline changes' signals it is safe to explore, 'Show/run require name' tells the agent when the name parameter is necessary, and 'Follow next_offset for complete lists' provides pagination behavior. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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