hires_list_statuses

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It implies a read-only listing operation and provides useful context that the values should be cached for validation. However, it doesn't explicitly state that the tool is safe/non-mutating or whether the list is exhaustive beyond the examples, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff. The first sentence defines the resource, and the second provides a practical tip. Every word earns its place.

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 list tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It names the specific values and hints at a common use case. Slight ambiguity about whether the list is exhaustive or if there are caveats, but overall it's adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to explain. The description adds value by enumerating the actual status labels, which compensates for the lack of parameter details. Baseline for 0 params is 4.

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 the tool's purpose: 'List job status labels' followed by specific examples (draft, published, on_hold, closed, archived). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_list_origins or hires_list_sources, which list different reference data.

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 instruction 'Cache to validate job status updates' gives a concrete use case: when setting or updating job status, use this cached list to ensure the new status is valid. This implies when to use the tool (for status validation) and is clear enough, though it doesn't explicitly list exclusions compared to alternatives.

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