search_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses the asynchronous nature: actions are queued into a cloud-browser workflow, the server returns immediately with a pending/running status, and final results are retrieved via get_workflow_result. It also explains the queued vs outsideWorkingHours states, adding rich behavioral context.

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-structured and appropriately sized for the complexity. It front-loads the purpose, then details the workflow and pending reasons, with each sentence earning its place and no redundant fluff.

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?

The description thoroughly covers the async workflow and pending states, which is the primary complexity. However, it doesn't specify the structure or content of the final search result returned by get_workflow_result, which might be a gap since there is no output schema.

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 for parameters is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond referencing 'various filtering criteria' and the custom search URL override, which is already in the schema.

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 that the tool searches jobs with filtering criteria and names the underlying action (st.searchJobs), unambiguously distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_people and search_companies.

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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: call get_workflow_result with the returned workflowId and operationName, and avoid retrying while the workflow is running. It also explains how to interpret pendingReason. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternative search tools, so it's not a 5.

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