search_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses salary estimate presence, page size limits, employment_type URL filter constraints, and return structure. It does not mention authentication or error behavior, but for a search tool these are not glaring omissions. Overall, strong behavioral transparency.

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 well-organized with an intro, a notable behavior note, a clearly formatted Args section, and a Returns line. Every sentence adds relevant information—nothing is filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 all parameters are optional, the description is complete enough: it explains all params, return keys, and behavioral quirks. It does not need to duplicate the output schema. The only minor gap is not addressing sibling tool selection, but that is a usage guideline concern rather than contextual completeness.

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 no descriptions, but the description adds meaningful semantics for all five parameters: keywords with examples, location with cities, radius in kilometers, employment_type restricted to FULL_TIME/PART_TIME, and page with 1-based numbering and page size. This fully compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 'Search job postings on XING' with a specific verb and resource, plus DACH region context. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'search_jobs_paginated', even though it describes page-based search behavior. This is clear but lacks direct sibling differentiation.

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 parameter usage guidance such as German terms matching better and employment_type restrictions. However, it does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_jobs_paginated or get_company_jobs. Usage context is implied by the purpose but not made explicit.

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