Jobven

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 covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the underlying REST endpoint and the "Free" cost signal, which matters for rate/cost budgeting. It says nothing about 404/not-found behavior, but with full annotation coverage a 3 is fair.

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 fragments with zero filler, ending on the cost signal. Slightly telegraphic — a reader has to infer "get" — but it is front-loaded and fails no one.

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 needn't be described, and the single parameter is fully documented in the schema. What remains thin is the relationship to search_companies (the natural entry point for obtaining an id), but for a simple get-by-id tool the definition is close to sufficient.

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?

There is one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, with the schema already explaining that the id comes from search_companies, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or provenance detail beyond that, so it neither helps nor hurts.

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?

"One employer by id" names a single, specific resource and makes clear it is a singular lookup keyed by id, which distinguishes it from the sibling search_companies. It is a fragment rather than a full verb+resource sentence, but the meaning is unambiguous and an agent can tell what it returns.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and never mentions the alternative search_companies. The only hint about usage lives in the input schema ("A company id from search_companies"), which is structured data rather than description text.

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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context beyond them: the quota cost ('counts as one job toward the monthly allowance') and that the full description is returned, which an agent should factor into call budgeting.

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 front-loads the resource and scope, then appends the endpoint and the quota caveat. No filler; every clause carries information.

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 no explanation, and the schema fully covers parameters. The description covers identity, scope, endpoint and cost, leaving only minor gaps such as error behavior for an unknown id.

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 both parameters (id and descriptionFormat) documented in the schema itself, including the uuid format and the plain/markdown enum. The description adds only 'by id', so baseline 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 and resource ('One Jobven job posting by id, with the full description'), which is clearly distinct from the search_jobs sibling since it retrieves a single posting by identifier. It stops short of explicitly naming search_jobs as the differentiator, but the id-based scope makes the distinction inferable.

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 implies the tool is used to fetch a single job once an id is known, and adds a meaningful operational note that each call consumes one job from the monthly allowance. It does not state when to prefer this over search_jobs or what to do if the id is unknown, so usage is only implied.

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 cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower and the description clears it by adding billing/quota behavior: company searches do not count toward the allowance. That is genuine behavioral context an agent cannot get from the annotations or schema. It does not describe result shape, but an output schema exists.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scoped by the endpoint, then the free-quota note. No filler text.

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 89% param coverage, the description only needs to add distinguishing context, which it does via the endpoint and quota note. It is nearly complete; a brief note on when to prefer it over get_company would close the last gap.

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 89%, so the schema already documents page, size, limit, search, sortBy, status, industry, sortOrder, and isVerified. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

The description states a specific verb (Search) and resource (companies/employers Jobven collects jobs from), and even names the underlying endpoint GET /v1/public/companies. It is clearly distinguishable from search_jobs and get_company by resource, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them.

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 the search framing and the note that company searches are free, which hints at when this is preferable cost-wise. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives like get_company for a single lookup, and no prerequisites.

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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description earns credit for the context it adds instead: results are truncated to a plain-text excerpt, pagination is cursor-based, and every returned job consumes the monthly allowance. Quota cost and result truncation are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from annotations, though return shape details are left to the output schema.

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 tight sentences with no waste, front-loading what the tool does and following with the two constraints (truncated text, cursor paging) an agent must know before calling. Nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 25-parameter search tool with an output schema and full schema coverage, the description supplies the few things structured fields cannot: result truncation, the get_job escape hatch, cursor reuse rules and quota impact. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly and continue paginating.

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 25 parameters, so the schema already documents filters, defaults, bounds and formats thoroughly. The description only restates the limit default/max and the cursor meaning, adding no syntax or semantics beyond the schema; 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 and resource ('Search Jobven job postings') plus the filter surface it mirrors. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling get_job by explaining that this tool returns only a plain-text excerpt, so an agent can route between them without opening either schema.

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?

Gives concrete operational guidance: default and maximum page size, how to paginate (pass nextCursor back as cursor with the same filters), and where to go for full text (get_job). It stops short of stating when not to use it, or when search_companies would be the better sibling, so it is clear context rather than full exclusion guidance.

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, so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the payload is signed with an 'example secret', the included verifier is guaranteed to accept the sample, and no key or API call is required. It stops short of describing payload size or exact return shape, but the output schema covers that.

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 sentences, front-loaded with what is returned before the supporting detail. Every clause earns its place: the payload contents, the verifier, the languages, and the no-auth/no-call fact are all decision-relevant.

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 two-parameter sample-fetch tool with full schema coverage, annotations, and an output schema, nothing an agent needs is missing. Return-value details are covered by the output schema, and the free/no-key nature is stated explicitly.

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 both parameters documented and enum-constrained, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description repeats the language choices (TypeScript, Python, Go) and the event concept but adds no new syntax or constraint detail — 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+resource+scope: returns a sample webhook delivery (raw body and headers) for one event, plus a signature verifier in one of three languages. It is unmistakably distinct from the sibling read tools (get_company, get_job, search_*), which query live API data rather than static sample payloads.

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?

Explains the motivating context clearly — 'so a receiver can be tested end to end' — and notes 'No API call, no key needed, free', which tells the agent this needs no auth and has no side effects. It doesn't explicitly contrast against the sibling tools, but the use case is unambiguous.

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