list_job_hunts

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates that this is a read operation ('List') and mentions the additional credits balance. However, it does not disclose details like pagination behavior, ordering, or whether any side effects occur. The behavior is straightforward, but additional context could be helpful.

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 concise sentences, immediately stating the main purpose and then the additional credits balance. No filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It states the primary return (job hunts) and the secondary return (credits balance), covering the essential information. It could mention pagination details, but these are not critical for this straightforward 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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (page and limit), achieving 100% coverage. The tool description adds no further parameter details, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The schema adequately explains the purpose and defaults for each parameter.

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 function: listing saved job hunts, with a specific verb and resource. It also adds the secondary function of returning the credits balance. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_job_hunt and create_job_hunt.

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 implicitly conveys when to use this tool: whenever you need to list your saved job hunts. It does not explicitly exclude alternatives, but the context is clear. Sibling tools like get_job_hunt imply a more targeted use case, though no direct comparison is made.

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