Ranked Jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully covered. The description adds useful content scope by noting the response includes open Tokyo jobs, which the annotations do not convey. It stops short of describing result shape or limits.

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 resource and scope are front-loaded. It is arguably terse rather than wasteful; every word carries meaning.

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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description compensates for the absence of an output schema by stating what is returned (a company profile plus its open Tokyo jobs). Pagination or result limits are unspecified, but the essential contract is 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?

With one parameter at 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents the id fully, including an example ('keyence') and its origin. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so 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?

The description names the resource (one company's profile) and its scope (open Tokyo jobs), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling search_companies by implying retrieval of a single entity. It is not a literal verb+resource phrase but the intent is unambiguous. Sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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 mention of when to prefer this over search_companies or get_job, and no stated prerequisites. The only chaining hint lives in the schema's id description (returned by search_companies), not in the description itself. Nothing tells the agent when this tool is the correct choice.

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 and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by listing what the payload contains (full description, salary, language requirements, visa sponsorship, Ranked page URL, source freshness), which is otherwise unavailable 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?

One dense sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded, followed by the field inventory. Nothing is wasted, though the long field enumeration makes it slightly list-like rather than crisply structured.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description must describe the return payload and does so concretely enough for an agent to know what it will get. It omits only minor details like failure behavior for an unknown or expired 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?

With a single parameter and 100% schema coverage, the schema fully documents the id and even its provenance ('returned by search_jobs'). The description only restates 'by id' and adds no format, validation or edge-case meaning, so 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Full details of one Ranked job by id') and enumerates exactly which fields are returned, which is more than a restatement of the title. It implicitly separates itself from search_jobs by scoping to a single record, though it never names the sibling 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: 'by id' suggests it is the follow-up step after a search, and the schema notes the id comes from search_jobs, but the description itself states no when-to-use condition or alternative. Adequate but no explicit routing 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the closed-corpus constraint (only companies hiring in Tokyo on Ranked), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about result ordering, freshness, 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action, resource, and scope stated first and no filler whatsoever.

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 should ideally sketch what a result contains or how results are ordered, but it stops at the input side. Combined with zero required parameters and a fully documented schema, it is adequate but leaves the return side entirely opaque.

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 goes further by revealing which fields the free-text query matches (name, industry, description) and the hiring-scoped nature of the corpus, information the schema does not carry.

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 companies") plus the domain scope ("hiring in Tokyo on Ranked") and the matched fields (name, industry, description). This clearly separates it from search_jobs, though it never names a sibling to contrast against.

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 sentence describes what the tool is, not when to pick it over get_company or search_jobs. There is no statement of preconditions, exclusions, or the alternative to use when you already know a company's identifier.

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, non-open-world). The description adds genuinely new behavior: results are ordered by Ranked's rank score, and each result carries a Ranked page plus a 'last verified live' timestamp. That is useful context beyond the structured fields, though neither pagination semantics nor failure behavior is mentioned.

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 dense sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope before the filter and return-value details. No filler, though the middle sentence packs many filters together and could be tighter.

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 12-parameter, no-output-schema search tool, the description covers the essentials: scope, audience, available filters, result ordering, and what each result contains (Ranked page + verification timestamp). Nothing critical for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 92%, so the schema already documents nearly every parameter including enums and the visa.sponsorship variance. The prose restates the same filters (English workable, Japanese required, visa sponsorship, remote, minimum salary in yen) without adding format or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so 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: 'Search live job openings in Tokyo, Japan, listed on Ranked (ranked.jp).' The resource (jobs) is unambiguous and self-evidently distinct from sibling search_companies. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to prefer, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 frames the audience ('Built for foreign professionals') and enumerates filters, which implies when the tool is useful, but it never states when to use this vs get_job/search_companies or any exclusions. Usage is implied rather than explicit.

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