HireHeat

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds beyond that: a hard result cap of 500, newest-first ordering, and the set of returned fields including conditional 'salary when published' — genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 dense sentence, front-loading the scope and cap before the field list. No filler and no redundancy with 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?

With no output schema, listing the returned fields is a real contribution and mostly compensates. However the 0%-coverage input schema leaves the keywords filter and limit semantics undocumented, so an agent cannot fully use the arguments without guessing.

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 must carry the parameter burden, and it largely does not. It hints at a limit ('up to 500') and mentions 'remote', but never explains the keywords filter, whether remote is a filter or a returned field, or how company is matched.

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+scope: 'Every open job at one company', with a cap and sort order ('up to 500, newest first'). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never references the sibling hiring_signals, so an agent gets no explicit differentiation between the two.

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 statement and no mention of the alternative hiring_signals. Usage is only implied by the noun 'open job', leaving the agent to infer that hiring_signals covers a different (non-posting) signal.

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, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the one-company/job-board URL scope and output dimensions but omits live-vs-cached data, authentication, rate limits, or pagination behavior.

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?

Single compact sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the main output categories. The noun-phrase list is dense and lacks a leading verb, but it does not waste words.

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 must describe returns, and it does so thoroughly with the metric list. It omits invocation guidance and sibling differentiation, but for a low-complexity two-parameter read tool the return-value coverage is largely complete.

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 company and keywords are already documented with examples. The description adds the job-board URL possibility for company but does not clarify the keywords parameter beyond the schema; baseline 3.

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 specifies the resource (hiring signals) and enumerates the data dimensions returned for one company domain or job-board URL, so an agent knows what it provides. It lacks an explicit verb and does not distinguish itself from the sibling company_jobs, so not 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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of when to prefer this over company_jobs. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name and content list.

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