search_funder_jobs

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

The description discloses that the data is 'backed by a weekly scrape of ~50K funder career pages plus LLM classification,' indicating data freshness and methodology. This adds context beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint) which already indicate the tool is read-only and data may change externally. No contradictions.

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 concise at 8 sentences, with a clear first sentence stating purpose. It front-loads key information, uses bullet-like structure, and avoids redundancy. Every sentence adds value.

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 12 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no required params, the description covers purpose, scope, data source, usage boundaries, and workflow integration with siblings. It does not detail return format or pagination, but the limit parameter is documented. Overall highly complete for a search 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 description coverage is 100%, so most parameters are well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the relationship between search_funders and the 'funder_eins' parameter, and notes limits (up to 100). This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Find OPEN philanthropy jobs at grantmaking foundations.' It specifies the verb, resource, and scope, and distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'search_open_grants' by explicitly specifying that this tool is for jobs, not grants.

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 explicitly tells when to use ('for jobs/careers/hiring questions'), when not to use ('NOT for grant opportunities'), and provides an alternative ('use search_open_grants for those'). It also gives a multi-step workflow for uncovered cause areas, instructing to call search_funders first and then pass funder EINs.

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