check_company

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses three non-obvious behaviors: the answer reflects board existence rather than posting availability (yes with open_jobs of 0), on_ashby is null—never false—when Ashby is unreachable, and plain names are retried as normalized slugs. These edge cases are exactly what an agent needs to interpret results correctly.

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?

Approximately four sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by two high-value semantic clarifications and a clean Args block. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler, and the structure makes the behavioral caveats easy to absorb.

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 (one required parameter, no annotations, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It documents input formats, the key output fields (on_ashby, open_jobs, job_board), and failure semantics. The only residual gap is that the exact return shape/type is left implicit rather than stated, and explicit sibling selection guidance is absent.

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 0% and the schema merely types company as a string. The description fully compensates by explaining that the input accepts either a jobs.ashbyhq.com/{slug} slug or a plain name, that names are retried across normalized slugs, and that the resolved slug is surfaced as job_board. This is rich meaning the schema alone would never convey.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Check whether a company hosts its job board on Ashby.' This is immediately distinguishable from the sibling set — it is a presence verification tool, not a job-listing tool (list_jobs, get_job) or a company-management tool (add_company, remove_company).

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?

Usage context is implied rather than stated. The line 'comes back as job_board for use with the other tools' suggests this is a prerequisite step before chaining other Ashby tools, and the existence-vs-postings clarification tells the caller how to interpret the result. However, there is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance, alternative routing, or exclusions relative to siblings.

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