WeJob

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the item must be public (so private/non-public ids will not resolve) and the id must carry one of three supported prefixes. Error handling for unsupported prefixes is left unstated.

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?

Two short sentences, with the core action front-loaded and the constraint clause appended. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 annotations carrying the safety profile, the description does not need to explain return values. For a one-parameter read tool it is nearly complete; only the failure mode for an unsupported prefix is unaddressed.

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 is 100% and the sole parameter is documented as the result id returned by search, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes beyond the schema by specifying the accepted id prefix syntax (job:, formation:, company:), which is real added meaning the schema does not carry.

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 (fetch) and resource (public WeJob item) scoped by id, and the prefix list (job:, formation:, company:) signals that this is the generic, multi-type getter rather than one of the type-specific siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming wejob_get_job/company/formation as alternatives, but an agent can still distinguish it.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the three type-specific getters or the search tool; the only implicit hint is the supported-prefix list. No prerequisites or exclusions are given, so the agent must infer routing from sibling names.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are public and return chained ids, which is helpful, but says nothing about pagination, limits, or result shape beyond the id note.

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?

Two short sentences, zero waste, with the core purpose and the fetch-handoff front-loaded.

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 need not be explained, yet the description supplies the key chaining detail (ids usable with fetch). The remaining gap is not clarifying its relationship to the specialized search siblings, but it is otherwise complete for correct invocation.

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 is 100%, so the schema already documents query, page, limit, and sort (with an enum). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or defaults, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: searching public WeJob jobs, formations, and companies. The scope hints it is the multi-type search versus the type-specific siblings, but the distinction is left implicit rather than stated.

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?

Adds a useful handoff note that results are usable with fetch, implying a search-then-fetch flow. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus the type-specific searches (wejob_search_jobs/formations/companies), so selection between them is inferred.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds only that the profile is 'public' (no private/authenticated data), which is modest value, and says nothing about rate limits or failure modes.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the id-format clarification in parentheses. No filler or redundancy.

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, a fully documented single parameter, and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete for this simple lookup. Only minor gap is the absence of explicit routing guidance against the sibling search tools.

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 is 100% and the schema only says 'Public company id.', but the description adds real meaning: the id may be a raw id or the 'company:<id>' form returned by search/fetch. That accepted-input detail is not derivable from the schema and genuinely helps invocation.

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 (Fetch) and resource (one public WeJob company profile) with clear scope ('one public'). The resource noun 'company' implicitly separates it from siblings like wejob_get_job and wejob_get_formation, but it never explicitly delineates itself from wejob_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?

Usage is implied: fetch a single company profile rather than search. It explains where the id comes from (search/fetch output), which is helpful context, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-search statement or exclusion of alternatives.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: only 'public active' formations are retrievable, and the id may be raw or carry a 'formation:' prefix, which affects how the call must be formed.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb, resource, key, and accepted id formats; no filler or redundant restatement of the title.

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 one-parameter read tool with annotations and an output schema, the essentials are present: scope, lookup key, and id format. The only minor gap is not stating the behavior when the id is missing or the formation is inactive, though 'active' implies that case exists.

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 is 100% and the schema only says 'Public formation id.', so baseline is 3. The description earns a point above baseline by documenting the two accepted id forms (raw id or formation:<id>), which the schema does not convey.

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 (fetch), resource (WeJob formation), and cardinality/scope (one, public, active), and pins the lookup key (public id). The singular 'one ... by public id' cleanly separates it from the sibling wejob_search_formations without needing to name it.

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?

It tells the agent when this tool applies: when you already hold an id, and it explicitly states the id originates from search/fetch, which routes the agent to the right siblings. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a named alternative for discovering ids.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/non-destructive/openWorld=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: only "public active" offers are returned, which signals preconditions and what an agent can expect for inactive or private ids.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste; the fetch action and the id-format clarification are packed without redundancy.

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 annotations, full schema coverage, and an output schema handling return values, the definition covers everything needed to call it correctly. Only the behavior on a nonexistent/inactive id is left implicit.

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 is 100% so the single id parameter is already documented. The description still adds meaning by specifying the accepted id forms (raw id or job:<id>), which the schema's "Public job id." does not convey.

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 precise verb+resource ("Fetch one public active WeJob job offer") and scopes it to a single record, making it distinguishable from the singular/plural search siblings. It does not name a specific alternative tool, so full sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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?

Clear context for use: single-offer lookup by id, with the id sourcing path spelled out ("raw id or the job:<id> returned by search/fetch"). No explicit when-not-to-use or named alternative is given, so it stops short of a 5.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and scope profile is covered structurally. The description's only added behavioral signal is 'public' profiles, and it says nothing about pagination limits beyond the schema, rate limits, or result shape. Adequate but thin given the annotations carry most of the load.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no waste, which is ideal for a tool whose parameters are fully self-documenting. It is arguably under-specified rather than padded, but nothing in it is redundant.

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 need not be explained, and the schema fully documents all 8 optional parameters. What is missing is routing context relative to wejob_get_company and wejob_search_jobs, which the agent needs to select correctly among seven siblings.

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% and every parameter (page, limit, sort enum, query, sizes, location, industries, technologies) is documented inline with formats and examples. The description adds no parameter meaning whatsoever, 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 (Search) and resource (public WeJob company profiles), so the agent knows this is a discovery/list operation rather than a single-entity lookup. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling wejob_get_company or from the generic 'search'/'fetch' tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 no when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and never mentions the alternatives among its siblings (wejob_get_company for a single profile, wejob_search_jobs for job discovery). The word 'public' hints at a scope boundary but no condition for choosing this tool is stated.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes one genuinely useful behavioral fact - that only *active* and *public* records are matched - but says nothing about pagination behavior, result caps, or rate limits beyond what the schema shows.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is structurally clean. But at five words it is under-specified rather than concise - the brevity removes information an agent needs rather than removing waste.

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 and annotations exist, so return format and safety need not be described. But for a 15-parameter search tool sitting among seven siblings including two other search tools, the description omits the sibling routing and the active/public filtering nuances that would let an agent choose and call it correctly.

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% across all 15 parameters, and several field descriptions already carry examples and cross-field advice (e.g. skills vs. query). The description adds no parameter-level meaning on top of that, which is the expected baseline-3 outcome when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a concrete verb and resource ('Search ... WeJob formations') plus a scope qualifier ('public active'), so the agent knows roughly what it returns. However, it draws no distinction from its near-identical siblings wejob_search_jobs and wejob_search_companies, and 'formations' (training programs) is not clarified for a non-French reader.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus wejob_get_formation or the other search_* siblings, no mention of prerequisites, and no guidance on paging through large result sets despite a page/limit schema. Usage is only implied by the word 'Search'.

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

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scoping fact that only public, active offers are returned, but says nothing about pagination limits, result caps, or behavior when filters conflict — adequate given the lower bar annotations set.

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?

A single tight sentence with zero filler, front-loading the core action and scope. It is efficient, though arguably terse to the point of omitting useful guidance for a 15-parameter tool.

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 need not be described, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, for a 15-parameter search tool the description offers no hint about how filters compose or which are preferred (e.g. query over skills), leaving that entirely to the 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 description coverage is 100%, with each of the 15 fields carrying detailed descriptions (query OR-semantics, comma-separated conventions, CHF salary, accepted French terms). The description adds no parameter guidance beyond the schema, 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 ('Search') and resource ('public active WeJob job offers'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling searchers wejob_search_companies and wejob_search_formations by resource domain. It stops short of naming those siblings explicitly, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus wejob_get_job for a single offer, or versus the other search_* tools. The only contextual hint is the word 'public', leaving the agent to infer routing from the name alone.

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