List your company's job postings on Himalayas. Shows status, views, clicks, and expiry. Requires employer authentication.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination (starts at 1) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the output fields and the authentication need, which is helpful. However, it does not mention pagination defaults, sorting order, whether the list includes all job statuses or only active ones, or any side effects (though it's clearly a read operation). The lack of any caveat about list size or filtering leaves some ambiguity.
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 two concise sentences that front-load the main purpose and then list the output and a key prerequisite. No filler or redundancy; every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple listing tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what it lists, what fields are returned, and the auth requirement. Pagination is implied via the schema parameter, and the output format isn't needed since no output schema exists. It's complete enough for an agent to confidently invoke it.
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?
The schema covers the single parameter (page) with 100% description coverage, so the schema already explains it. The tool description adds no additional parameter details or usage hints, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 verb+resource: 'List your company's job postings on Himalayas' and specifies the output fields ('status, views, clicks, expiry'). It differentiates from siblings like get_jobs or search_jobs by scoping to the employer's own company postings, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.
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 gives a contextual clue ('your company's job postings') and an authentication requirement ('Requires employer authentication'), but it doesn't explicitly say when to use this vs. other job-listing tools (e.g., get_jobs, search_jobs). No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct resource and action: job posting vs job browsing vs job management vs company management vs talent search vs profile editing vs messaging vs application tracking. Even similar tools like get_companies and search_companies are clearly differentiated by purpose and parameters. Overlapping concepts (e.g., post_job_public vs create_company_job) have explicit differences in authentication and cost.
All tools use snake_case and follow a verb-first pattern (add_, get_, create_, update_, delete_, search_, list_, send_, etc.). There are minor deviations like 'show_company_job' instead of 'get_company_job' and 'mark_message_read' which is a verb+noun+adjective, but the overall style is consistent and predictable across the 41 tools.
With 41 tools, this is well into the 'too many' range (25+). While the breadth reflects a comprehensive jobs platform, the number is excessive for an agent to efficiently navigate. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., profile management could merge add_education/add_experience/update_profile, or company perks could be combined with profile updates). The tool count detracts from usability.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle: job posting (create, update, delete, list), job discovery (browse, search, related), company management (profile, perks, tech stack), talent search and messaging, application tracking (save, get, remove, update status), and data analytics (salary, statistics). Minor gaps exist—no delete/update for education or experience, no explicit 'close job' action—but these are edge cases and agents can work around them.