run_job_scout

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the significant side effects: automatic bookmarking and staged/submitted applications via HybridApplicationDispatcher, gated on auto_apply. It omits permission requirements, rate limits, runtime/latency, and any reversibility caveats for submitted applications, which matters for a mutating pipeline.

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?

Front-loaded with a single-sentence purpose, followed by one dense sentence enumerating the pipeline stages. Efficient, though the second sentence is a long run-on that could be split for scanability.

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 values ('structured tracking metrics') need not be expanded, and all 20 params are schema-documented. The remaining gap is the absence of usage routing and safety/permission context for a 20-param tool that can submit real applications.

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 all 20 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only a marginal cross-reference between action_mode 'autonomous' and auto_apply; it provides no syntax or default semantics beyond what the schema states, 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 ('Execute') and resource ('multi-source job scouting pipeline') and then enumerates the actual stages (discover sources, aggregate listings, score CV match, bookmark, stage/submit applications). This distinguishes it from granular siblings like job_search, auto_apply_job, and get_job_matches, which each cover only one stage.

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 explains what the pipeline does but never says when to choose it over the many sibling tools (job_search, auto_apply_job, get_job_matches, filter_jobs_by_preferences). There is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative, leaving selection to inference from the enumerated steps.

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