Youth4work (public, no sign-in)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without prose. The description adds only 'Public profile', implying no auth, and an enumeration of returned fields; it says nothing about pagination, rate limits, or error behavior for invalid ids. Adequate but not rich.

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 core purpose first, followed by the field inventory. No filler sentences; the field list earns its place because no output schema exists.

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 and one fully-documented parameter, the description supplies exactly what is missing: the shape of the returned profile (university, city, address, website, about, highlights, courses with fees, counts, profile url). An agent knows what it will get 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter is already documented as 'College id', so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by specifying where valid ids come from ('from search_colleges') and that the value is a numeric id.

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?

Specific verb+resource: 'Public profile of one college by id', which is immediately distinguishable from the sibling search_colleges. It also names the source of the id ('from search_colleges'), so an agent can tell this apart from the list/search tool 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?

The parenthetical '(from search_colleges)' effectively tells the agent when this tool applies: after obtaining a college id from a search. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative for the reverse case, but the retrieval context is clear.

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 read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond that: the field set returned and the privacy constraint that recruiter contact details are withheld, plus the qualifier that only 'live' jobs are covered.

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 purpose and the return payload, then a short caveat. The field enumeration is a touch listy but each item earns its place by previewing the response.

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 compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and it flags the recruiter-contact exclusion. It omits error/failure behavior for non-live or missing job ids, which would be the only remaining 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's bare 'Job id' by naming search_jobs as the source of valid ids. That provenance is genuinely useful for constructing a correct call.

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 ('Full details of one live job by id') and scopes it to a single live job, which cleanly separates it from the sibling search_jobs. An agent can tell immediately this is the detail-fetch counterpart to search.

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 parenthetical '(from search_jobs)' tells the agent where the id comes from, implying this is the follow-up call after a search. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., what happens with expired/non-live job ids), so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real behavioral context beyond them: the start-test URL is free but requires a Youth4work sign-in, which is exactly the kind of side condition an agent needs before promising a link works. Error behavior and id-miss handling remain 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?

One sentence, purpose and scoping clause front-loaded, followed by a compact field list. Dense but every clause carries information; the trailing parenthetical about sign-in is worth its length.

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 correctly compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and for a single-param read tool with full annotation coverage that is nearly sufficient. Minor gaps are the absence of behavior on an unknown id and of any indication of response nesting.

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 there is a single integer param, so the baseline would be 3. The description goes slightly beyond the schema's bare 'Mock test id' by identifying the upstream tool that supplies the value, which is useful provenance 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 and resource ('Details of one mock test by id') and enumerates the payload (exam, sections, question count, duration, marking, URLs). It also names the sibling that produces the required id (search_mock_tests), so it is distinguishable from search_mock_tests 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?

The parenthetical '(from search_mock_tests)' establishes the prerequisite workflow: search first, then fetch by id. That is clear context for when to reach for this tool, though it never states an explicit exclusion or what to do when the id is unknown/invalid.

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, openWorld), so the bar is lower. The description still adds useful disclosure about data scope, enumerating what the payload contains and explicitly stating 'No contact details', which is meaningful privacy/behavioral context an agent cannot infer from 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 dense sentence with the identifier rule front-loaded followed by the return payload. It is on the long side, but each clause (username source, rank format, field list, no-contact caveat) carries distinct information rather than padding.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description takes on the burden of describing the return shape and does so thoroughly: About text, skill test ranks with N of M and top X%, headline, city, education, talents, experience, canonical URL. Combined with the identifier explanation, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret it.

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 already names the parameter, but the description adds real meaning by pinning username to the URL fragment 'the part after /y/ in https://www.youth4work.com/y/{username}', which reduces ambiguity about the identifier's format.

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: fetch the public profile of one member identified by username. It also scopes the resource as public-only and explains the username's origin, which lets an agent separate this from siblings like search_talent or get_college.

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 clear context: this retrieves exactly one member and the username is the segment after /y/ in the profile URL. It does not explicitly say when to use this versus search_talent for discovery-style lookups, so routing guidance 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?

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds behavioral value by disclosing what is returned — categories together with their most popular skills — which is not encoded anywhere else since there is no 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with what is listed and followed by the actionable next step. Every clause earns its place with 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so reasonably by naming the content (categories plus popular skills). A bit more on the shape of the result would make it fully self-sufficient, but it is adequate for a simple enumeration tool.

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-must-compensate burden does not apply and the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description misrepresents the parameter surface.

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 (lists talent categories) and grounds it with concrete examples (Software and Programming, Finance, Sales and Marketing). It implies placement in the family by pointing to search_talent as the follow-up, though it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with search_talent or the other search_* 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?

Gives a clear downstream directive: use the returned skill names with search_talent, so the agent knows how this tool fits into a workflow. It doesn't state when NOT to use it or name alternative enumeration sources, so it falls 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 readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is low, and the description still adds non-obvious behavior: result ordering ('Most active on Youth4work first') and the returned field set. It does not mention rate limits or total-result caps, but for a read-only search that is minor.

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: scope, filter constraint with examples, then ranking and return fields. Nothing is redundant and the most important constraint (at least one filter) is 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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately names the return fields, and the ordering note covers ranking behavior. The only gap is that pagination semantics and any behavior for zero-match queries are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable but not exhaustive.

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 baseline is 3; the description earns above baseline by adding a cross-parameter constraint the schema does not express ('give at least one of' the three filters) plus example values for course and city. It adds little about page, but the schema already handles that.

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 (colleges/universities) plus the domain ('on Youth4work University'), which cleanly separates it from get_college (single lookup) and search_jobs/search_talent. An agent can tell what it does without opening the 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?

Explicitly requires at least one of name/course/city and gives concrete value examples for course and city, which is real invocation guidance. It does not, however, mention when to prefer the sibling get_college for a known institution, so the alternative-routing 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive. Beyond that, the description adds sort ordering ('newest first') and the matching rule (keyword against title, summary, required skills), which are behavioral details not in annotations. Good added context, though it omits pagination behavior despite a page param.

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 scope and ordering, then the match rule and return fields. No wasted words; every clause adds 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?

Covers purpose, ordering, matching semantics, and even enumerates returned fields despite no output schema, which is helpful. Minor gap: no mention of pagination limits or empty-result behavior, but overall sufficient for 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 75% and documents city, page, and query with examples; type is enum-bare without a description. The description adds matching semantics for the query parameter (which fields it searches), which is genuine value, but adds nothing for city/type/page.

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 (search job and internship openings) and a distinguishing scope ('Live ... on Youth4work ... newest first'). Clearly separable from siblings like search_colleges and search_talent, which target different resources.

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 'Live job and internship openings' framing implies the tool's domain, but no explicit when-to-use vs when-not, no mention of search_colleges/search_talent as alternatives. Usage is inferable but not 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 cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: results are sorted 'most popular first,' capped at 'up to 5 mock tests' per exam, and each item includes an exam page url plus mock test questions/minutes/url. It doesn't mention pagination behavior despite the page param.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the resource and packs in examples, sorting, limits, and return fields. The 'Free exam preparation on Youth4work Prep' preamble is slightly promotional but short, and no sentence is 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does it reasonably well, disclosing sorting, the 5-test cap, and returned fields. The only meaningful gap is pagination, since the page parameter and its 20-per-page behavior go unmentioned.

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 all three parameters (exam, category, page) are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces exam/category semantics with examples but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, and never mentions the page parameter. 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 (finds/searches) and resource (exams/mock tests) and even enumerates example values, so the agent knows exactly what it returns. The 'search' verb distinguishes it from the sibling get_mock_test by implication, but the description never explicitly names or contrasts that alternative.

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 through 'by name and/or category,' giving the agent a sense of how to query. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to the sibling get_mock_test, which retrieves a single test and is the natural alternative.

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 the safe read-only, idempotent, open-world profile. Beyond that, the description adds valuable disclosure: results are public profile cards only, contact details are never returned, and private/deactivated profiles are excluded. It stops short of describing pagination edge 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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, followed by the privacy/exclusion caveat. Every clause carries information and nothing 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?

With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates returned card fields and exclusion rules, which is the key missing structured information. Minor gaps remain around result volume/pagination behavior and sorting direction, though the page parameter's 20-per-page note partially covers this.

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 baseline is 3. The description reinforces that city is a single-city filter and that skill drives the ranking, but it adds no format, syntax, or boundary detail beyond what the schema already documents.

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 specific verb (Find), a specific resource (people on Youth4work), and the ranking model (assessed talent score), which clearly separates it from sibling tools like search_colleges, search_jobs, and list_talent_categories. An agent can identify the target entity without opening the 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?

Usage is implied through the phrase 'optionally in one Indian city', which tells the agent city is an optional narrowing filter and that only one city may be supplied. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance or routing to alternatives such as get_profile or list_talent_categories.

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