search_jobs_paginated

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: pagination behind a rate limiter, deduplication, ~1 second request spacing, and time estimates, giving the agent realistic expectations about performance and side effects.

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 well-structured: two sentences of purpose/usage followed by a clean argument list. Every sentence adds value, and the argument definitions are direct without redundancy.

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 (not shown) covers return format, the description covers all other essentials: parameters, pagination behavior, rate limiting, and deduplication. The sibling comparison and explicit cap complete the picture for a complex paginated tool.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description hand-documents all five parameters with meaningful details: radius is in kilometres, employment_type accepts FULL_TIME or PART_TIME, and max_results is capped at 200. This adds crucial semantics beyond the bare schema properties.

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 XING jobs across multiple pages, deduplicated,' which clearly states the action, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `search_jobs` by noting it is the paginated alternative, avoiding repeated calls.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use this tool 'instead of calling `search_jobs` repeatedly,' providing clear when-to-use guidance. It also explains the rate limiting and deduplication benefits, helping the agent choose correctly among siblings.

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