Greenhouse Jobs Snapshot (Base Sepolia)

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds valuable non-redundant behavioral facts: deterministic and sorted output, a 500-job cap, the base-network payment requirement, and the 0.001 USDC cost per successful snapshot. No contradiction with annotations 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?

The description is compact and front-loaded: the first clause names the tool's purpose, followed by output fields, constraints, network, and cost. There is no filler or redundant restatement of the tool name.

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 description does a good job listing return fields since there is no output schema, and it covers cost, network, and result cap. However, it does not explain how to populate the required `board` parameter or the default behavior of `maxJobs`, so a caller cannot be fully certain about the invocation contract.

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 0%, so the description had to compensate by defining the `board` and `maxJobs` parameters. It mentions 'one board' and 'up to 500 jobs,' but never explicitly says what `board` should contain (e.g., the Greenhouse board slug) or how `maxJobs` behaves when omitted. This leaves a real gap for an agent choosing an argument value.

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 states this produces a deterministic snapshot of a public Greenhouse job board and enumerates the contents: sorted job IDs, titles, locations, listing URLs, timestamps, and content hash. This precisely identifies the tool's resource and scope, and there are no sibling tools needing differentiation.

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?

With no sibling tools, there is no exclusion rule required. The description supplies clear context: it is for a single public Greenhouse board, limited to 500 jobs, on Base Sepolia testnet with a fixed USDC fee. It just stops short of an explicit 'use this when...' statement.

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