job_search

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose that results are opaque refs consumed by job_fetch and that searching spans all enabled sources. It is silent on read-only nature, rate limits, and the fact that cursor/seniority/freshness_days are rejected, which the schema alone must convey.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the core action comes first and the ref/job_fetch contract follows immediately.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers purpose plus the job_fetch handoff. For a ten-parameter tool it is nearly complete, missing only a note on the disabled/deferred filters and alternating-source selection.

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 the schema already documents all ten parameters (including the deferred, rejected ones). The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Search normalized jobs across enabled TechJobMCP sources') and clarifies the return contract (opaque refs). It implies the distinction from search_linkedin_jobs via 'across enabled sources' but never names the sibling or states the differentiator explicitly.

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?

'Provider knowledge is not required' tells the agent it can call this without knowing source families, which is useful implied guidance, and naming job_fetch gives a workflow hint. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_linkedin_jobs / get_job_matches, and no when-not guidance.

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