hires_list_career_jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose the key trait that jobs are 'publicly visible' and supports filtering, but it omits pagination behavior and response details. The schema mentions page/size defaults, but the description itself lacks that nuance.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource, and contains no redundant words. Every phrase adds value: scope, filters, and use case.

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 covers purpose, scope, filters, and a concrete use case. There is no output schema, and the description could mention pagination or return structure, but for a simple list tool with well-described schema parameters, it is reasonably 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 baseline is 3. The description echoes the filter parameters (department, employment type, city, country) but adds no new semantic information beyond what the schema already documents. It is adequate but not compensating for anything missing.

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 opens with a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('publicly visible jobs for a company career site'), which precisely differentiates it from internal job tools like hires_list_jobs. It also names the key scope ('publicly visible') and the intended context (career site).

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 explicitly states a use case: 'Use to power a custom careers page.' This gives clear context for when to invoke the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives/exclusions, such as using hires_list_jobs for internal job listings, 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.