Christian Jobs List

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

With readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false already declared, the description still adds real behavioral value: it discloses that only 'current' jobs are returned (expired listings are excluded), that descriptions are sanitized and capped at 8,000 characters (so content can be truncated), and that a page link is included. The remaining gap is error behavior when an id does not match a current job.

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 return unit, source, identifying key, and two notable content properties. Every clause carries information and nothing is padded.

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 full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description covers the important surprises (currency filtering, sanitization, length cap, page link). Only not-found/error semantics are left unaddressed, a minor gap at this complexity.

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 id parameter's own description already explains that it comes from a search_jobs result and that the trailing number works standalone. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter, which is acceptable given the schema does the work, but it earns no credit beyond the baseline.

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?

It states a specific verb and resource ('Returns one current Christian Jobs List job by its id'), and the word 'one' implicitly contrasts with the multi-result search_jobs sibling. It stops short of naming search_jobs or list_categories explicitly, so the differentiation is inferred 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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no alternative tool is mentioned by name. The reader can infer that this fetches a single record once an id is known, but that routing logic is never spelled out in the description itself.

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?

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world operation. Beyond that, the description adds only that counts reflect current listings; it does not discuss ordering, completeness, or whether zero-count categories are included.

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 no unnecessary wording. Every clause adds useful information: the action, the resource, the source site, and the included counts.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with an output schema and clear annotations, the description contains enough information to call it correctly. Return-value structure is appropriately left to the output 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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline for zero-parameter tools applies, and the description correctly avoids inventing parameter behavior.

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 pairs a specific verb, "Lists," with a specific resource, "job categories on Christian Jobs List," and adds that each category includes a current listing count. It is clearly distinct from get_job and search_jobs by resource, though it does not explicitly name or contrast those siblings.

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 intended use is implied by the description: retrieve category names and listing counts. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no routing advice relative to search_jobs or get_job.

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?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond that: only *current* listings are searched, and each result includes a link to its page. It says nothing about paging behavior or result ordering, which is why this stays at a 3 rather than higher.

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 well-formed sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then the facets, then the return shape. No filler, no repetition of the title, nothing an agent has to skim past.

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 six optional parameters, full schema coverage, an output schema and clear read-only annotations, the description is nearly complete: it conveys the search surface and the result shape. The only missing piece an agent might want is explicit guidance on paging or on obtaining valid category values via list_categories, which is left 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%, so the schema already explains limit, query matching rules, offset paging, remote semantics, category validation against list_categories, and location matching. The description's phrase 'by keyword, category, remote and location' merely restates those parameter names and adds no formatting or edge-case detail 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 (searches) and resource (current job listings on Christian Jobs List) and enumerates the four facets it searches by, plus what comes back (each job with a link). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_job or list_categories, so an agent must infer that this is the multi-result search path while the siblings handle single-job lookup and category enumeration.

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 offers no when-to-use and no when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions the sibling tools. Routing knowledge such as 'use list_categories to get valid category names' or 'use get_job for a single listing' exists only inside the parameter schema, not in the description itself.

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