search_free_jobs

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

Adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotations: partial failures remain visible, feed matching is local/limited, the country filter is Himalayas-only, and personal keywords are disallowed. These are operational caveats an agent would not know from readOnly/idempotent hints alone.

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?

Every sentence adds useful information, and the most important facts (default source, coverage options) are front-loaded. The description is compact and avoids repeating schema or annotation details.

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?

With an output schema present and multiple parameters, the description covers the key behavioral constraints (source defaults, country limitation, partial failures). It leaves page/limit/exclude_urls semantics implicit, but those are reasonably self-evident from the parameter names.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the sources parameter ('default Himalayas', 'add Jobicy/Arbeitnow') and the country limitation, but it does not clarify page, limit, exclude_urls, or the exact query constraints beyond 'No personal keywords'.

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 identifies the action ('Search') and resource ('selected free sources'), with a specific default ('default Himalayas'). It does not name sibling tools, so differentiation from alternatives is limited, but the scope and default behavior are clear.

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 concrete invocation guidance: which sources to add for broader coverage, that the country filter only applies to Himalayas, that partial failures are visible, and that personal keywords are not appropriate. It stops short of explicitly comparing against alternative tools.

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