VA Jobs by Virtual Assistant International

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that – no indication of return granularity, freshness, or what 'key numbers' actually contains.

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 short clause, front-loaded with the subject and scoped by three short modifiers. No filler, though it is terse enough to be slightly vague about scope.

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 no-param read tool with no output schema, the description should at least delimit what 'key numbers and values' means. It gives a rough shape of the content but leaves the return surface undefined, which is a noticeable gap with no output schema present.

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 zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to disambiguate, and it correctly does not discuss inputs.

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 (Virtual Assistant International company identity) and enumerates what it covers: what it does, key numbers, values. Siblings like get_platform_overview and get_va_info are semantically distinct enough that an agent can route without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 only implied: an agent can infer this is for high-level company background rather than platform or contact details. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no mention of the sibling tools it competes with (get_platform_overview, get_va_info).

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond that: it doesn't indicate what channels are returned (email, phone, hours, portal) or any access constraints, so it contributes essentially no context of its own.

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 filler. It is efficient, though its brevity shades into under-specification rather than economy.

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 lookup with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but thin: it never says what form the contact information takes or what distinguishes it from the other info-fetching 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a no-parameter tool 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 names the resource ('VA International support') but phrases it as a topic ('How to reach') rather than a specific verb+resource, and it does nothing to separate itself from siblings like get_faq, get_va_info, or get_company_overview that could plausibly also contain support contact details.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative. An agent choosing between this and get_faq or get_va_info for a support question gets no help from the 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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and scope are covered. The description adds topical scope but says nothing about freshness (the phrase 'at launch' hints at a point-in-time snapshot without explaining it) or what form the answer takes. Modest added value over the annotations.

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 short sentence with no filler, and the subject matter is front-loaded. It is efficient, though a verb would have made it a fully self-sufficient call description.

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 parameterless, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description's job is to convey the content scope, which it does in outline. The ambiguous phrase 'at launch' and the absence of any hint about the returned format or coverage leave the agent with an incomplete picture of what it will actually receive.

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 zero parameters, so the schema places no documentation burden on the description; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description misdescribes the (empty) input contract.

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 a specific topical resource — how employers post a role on VA Jobs and the associated cost — which is concrete enough to distinguish from support/legal/FAQ siblings. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent must infer that the tool *retrieves* this information, and it does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like get_va_info or get_platform_overview.

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 call this tool, when not to, or which sibling to prefer for overlapping employer/company questions. The agent is left to infer usage entirely from the topic phrase.

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety and closed-world scope are covered. The description adds only that results are 'short' and limited to one topic, which is modest extra context beyond the annotations.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded and waste-free, though it is arguably too terse to guide invocation in a crowded sibling set.

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?

Read-only and closed-world behavior are covered by annotations and the parameter is fully documented, so the essentials are present. However, with six sibling get_* tools and no output schema, the description doesn't clarify how this differs from overlapping tools such as get_va_info or get_contact_and_support.

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% with a fully enumerated topic parameter, so the schema carries parameter meaning. The description reinforces the single-topic scoping, adding minor value on top of 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 (get) and resource (FAQ) scoped to a single topic, which is clear on its own. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_va_info or get_contact_and_support, though the FAQ/topic framing implies a distinct role.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus siblings such as get_va_info or get_contact_and_support, which could overlap for a virtual_assistants or support topic. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and enum values.

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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile (safe, local read) is covered without description help. The description adds only a content summary, with no detail on return format, auth, or limits; given the low bar set by annotations, this is adequate but not value-adding.

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 short sentence that front-loads the resource and lists exactly what is returned, with no filler. Nothing is wasted for a simple lookup 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?

For a zero-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema, the description tells the agent what content to expect (operator details plus terms/privacy/cookie links), which is sufficient. Only a note on return shape/format is missing, which is minor given the tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for; the baseline for a no-param tool applies. No parameter ambiguity exists.

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 a specific resource (operator details, terms, privacy and cookie policy links) so the agent knows what it returns. It is clear on its own, but it doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_company_overview or get_platform_overview, which could plausibly contain overlapping operator/company information, so it falls 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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the description alone that this is the tool for legal/policy link retrieval, with no exclusions such as when to prefer get_contact_and_support instead.

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 openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the notable constraint that it holds no job data, but offers nothing about return format, structure, or other behavioral traits.

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, fully front-loaded with the core purpose and a key exclusion. Every word 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 zero-parameter, read-only info tool, the description is adequate but minimal. It doesn't clarify what 'sections' means or what the response contains, forcing the agent to infer. With no output schema, a bit more detail on return content would help.

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?

Zero parameters, so baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed by describing a static overview.

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-free but clear resource ('VA Jobs platform') and its scope ('which sections it has'), with a useful negative boundary ('Holds no job data'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_va_info or get_faq beyond the negation.

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 phrase 'Holds no job data' implies when NOT to use it (for job queries), but no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over get_va_info or get_faq. Usage is implied rather than 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?

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint=false annotations already establish this as a safe, self-contained read, so the description's burden is lower. It adds topical scope (browsing, free account, profile) but says nothing about the form or depth of what comes back, so it clears the annotation-lowered bar only marginally.

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?

Eight words with no filler, but it is an unpunctuated fragment rather than a front-loaded statement of purpose, so brevity comes at the cost of clarity. A short leading clause naming the resource would cost nothing.

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 informational tool with no output schema, the description is the only signal an agent has about the return content, and a three-item topic list is thin. It does not say what form the answer takes or how it differs from the neighbouring overview/FAQ 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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to supply; the baseline for a no-arg tool 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 gestures at content ('How virtual assistants use VA Jobs: browsing, free account, profile') but is a noun fragment with no verb, so it never states plainly that the tool returns informational content. It also does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_employer_info or get_platform_overview, which cover adjacent audience/overview material.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of any alternative tool, despite six siblings that plausibly overlap. The topic hints ('browsing, free account, profile') imply the audience but not the trigger condition for calling this instead of another info tool.

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