BlueTeamJobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by disclosing the content of the response (pay, location, clearance, certifications, skills, excerpt), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits failure behavior for an unknown or expired id.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the returned-field list is compact. It is appropriately sized, though it spends its words on return contents rather than usage routing.

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 read-only single-record tool with a fully documented parameter, covered annotations, and no output schema, listing the returned fields makes the definition nearly self-sufficient. Only lookup-failure and id-provenance guidance are missing.

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 itself explains that the id may be a 6-character id or a blueteamjobs.com URL. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 for a fully documented single parameter is correct.

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 ('Details of one job') and enumerates the fields returned, so the agent knows this is a single-record detail fetch rather than a search. It does not explicitly name how it differs from siblings like latest_jobs or search_jobs, which keeps it from 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 explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. 'requires an id from search_jobs'), and no mention of alternatives for list-style retrieval. The singular 'one job' only weakly implies the lookup-by-id case versus the sibling search tools.

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 this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context: the data source, 12-month window, annual USD basis, and the requirement of at least 3 postings with pay before results are available.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose and then the sample-size constraint. It is dense with relevant information and has no filler.

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?

The tool is read-only and has clear input constraints, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify which percentiles are returned or the response shape. For a statistics tool, that leaves a meaningful gap in what the agent should expect back.

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 description maps the four parameters to the dimensions role, US state, seniority, and work arrangement, which adds some meaning beyond the schema, especially clarifying that remote refers to work arrangement. With only 50% schema description coverage, it could have explained the enum values or omission behavior more fully, so this is adequate but not rich.

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 states a specific resource and computation: pay percentiles from BlueTeamJobs postings over the last 12 months, sliced by role, state, seniority, or work arrangement. It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling job-listing tools by being a salary aggregation tool, though it does not 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 scope is clear: salary percentiles from the last 12 months of postings, with a minimum sample of 3 paid postings. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of search_jobs or latest_jobs, nor does it describe exclusions or edge-case behavior beyond the sample threshold.

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, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: "first seen" defines latest by discovery date rather than posting date, and "newest first" discloses sort order — genuinely useful, though pagination/limit behavior is 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?

A single front-loaded sentence that packs scope, ordering and the optional filter with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or buried.

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 four-parameter, all-optional read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core semantics. It falls slightly short by not mentioning the remote/hybrid/onsite filter or the default window of 7 days versus the vaguer "last few days".

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 50%: days and role are documented in the schema, and the description reinforces both ("last few days", "for one role"). The limit and remote parameters get no explanation in either place, so the description only partially compensates for the gap.

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 resource (jobs), a scope (first seen in the last few days), an ordering (newest first) and an optional role filter. An agent can tell what it returns, but nothing in the text distinguishes it from sibling search_jobs.

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?

"Optionally for one role" implies how to narrow results, but there is no explicit when-to-use / when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of search_jobs as the alternative for keyword or location queries, even though that sibling exists.

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 establish that this is a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world operation. The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond that: results are ordered by job count descending and include a remote count. It does not explain pagination or how limit affects the result set, keeping it from a 5.

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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and includes only useful qualifying details. Nothing is redundant or wasted.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers the core result shape and ordering. However, it omits the role filter's effect and limit/pagination behavior, which are material 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?

The description mentions neither parameter. The schema documents role reasonably well (slug/name example and pointer to list_roles), but limit has no description beyond default/min/max. At 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate — especially by explaining that role filters the locations — but it does not.

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 resource (job locations: countries, US states, cities) and adds scope (open jobs), ordering (most jobs first), and an extra return element (remote count). It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling search_jobs, which also returns jobs, 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?

Usage is implied by 'Places with open jobs' — an agent can infer this is for discovering locations that have openings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to search_jobs, and no mention of how the role filter should influence selection.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds genuinely useful output context (each role carries an open job count) but does not mention ordering, completeness, or whether counts are live.

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 no waste, and the resource definition is front-loaded before the usage hint. Slightly telegraphic phrasing ('The role categories BlueTeamJobs uses') but efficient.

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 no output schema, the description must convey return shape, and it does cover the essentials: a set of role categories, each with a slug and an open job count. Fuller field-level detail would help, but nothing critical for correct invocation is absent.

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 tool takes no parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. No parameter information is needed or missing.

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 names the resource precisely (role categories used by BlueTeamJobs) and states what each entry carries (open job counts), which distinguishes it from sibling list tools like list_locations and search_jobs. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'list/returns', but the intent is unambiguous.

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?

'Use the slugs in other tools' implies the discovery-then-filter workflow with search_jobs/get_job, but it never states when to call this versus those siblings, nor any prerequisite ordering. Usage is implied rather than spelled out.

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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: results are newest-first and there is no in-tool apply (results link out to the job page). It says nothing about result counts, pagination behavior, or empty-result handling.

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 sentences, zero waste, with the domain scope front-loaded and the ordering plus apply behavior trailing. Nothing repeats the schema or the title verbatim.

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 10-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, it leaves gaps: it does not say how filters combine (e.g. query AND role), how many results come back or how paging works despite page/limit caps, or whether an empty result is normal. Adequate but noticeably incomplete.

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 70% with enums and per-param descriptions for role, query, location, clearance, min_salary and certification, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description's list of job families indirectly informs what `query` and `role` will match, but it adds no syntax or combination semantics beyond the schema.

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 open defensive cybersecurity jobs') and narrows the domain precisely to blue-team families (SOC, IR, DFIR, threat hunting, CTI, detection/security engineering) on BlueTeamJobs. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling `latest_jobs`, which the 'Newest first' ordering actually makes it sound like.

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?

Implied usage only: the filter-oriented nature and 'where the user applies' framing tell the agent this is a browse-then-hand-off tool, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to `latest_jobs`, `get_job`, or `get_salary_stats`. The schema does point at `list_roles` for the role parameter, so that path exists outside the description.

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