list_job_hunts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool 'Also returns your current credits balance,' which adds useful context beyond a simple list operation. However, it lacks critical details: it doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, whether it requires authentication, how pagination works (beyond what's in the schema), or what the output format looks like. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its 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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, stating the primary purpose in the first clause. The second clause adds useful context about the credits balance. Both sentences earn their place by providing distinct information. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the list operation from the credits return.

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 tool's low complexity (2 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is moderately complete. It covers the main action and an additional return value (credits balance), but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or output structure. Without annotations or an output schema, the agent must infer these aspects, making the description adequate but with clear gaps for a read operation.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters ('page' and 'limit') fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline score is 3 even with no param info in the description, which applies here.

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 your saved job hunts (job searches).' It specifies the verb ('list') and resource ('saved job hunts'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'get_job_hunt' (singular) or 'create_job_hunt'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_applications' or 'list_resumes' beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'get_job_hunt' for a single hunt, or how it relates to other list tools like 'list_applications'. There's also no indication of prerequisites or context for usage, such as authentication needs or data availability.

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