hires_list_jobs

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

The description discloses that results are paginated, which is a key behavioral trait not evident from the name. There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden, but it does not explicitly state read-only nature, error conditions, or rate limits. For a simple list operation, it provides moderate transparency.

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 three concise sentences, front-loaded with the action and followed by behavioral and use-case details. No filler words; every sentence adds value. This is exemplary conciseness.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema and annotations, the description covers the core functionality and pagination behavior. It omits detailed response structure, but for a filtered list with a rich schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke it appropriately. The use cases add context.

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 input schema already covers all 10 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of filters by status, date range, department, or search query maps to the schema but doesn't add deeper semantics. It does not clarify any ambiguity in parameter interactions, so a score of 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?

The description clearly states it 'List jobs with optional filters', using a specific verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool hires_list_career_jobs, though the mention of 'career-site sync' hints at context. Overall, the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides explicit use cases ('career-site sync, reporting, and external system indexing') which indicate when to use this tool. It does not offer exclusions or alternatives, so it slightly under-serves the 'when not to use' aspect. This is clear context, though not fully differentiating.

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