ultra_4

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It adds valuable behavioral context: the update schedule (once per day at 01:30 UTC) and the subscription requirement. It also implies a read-only operation by saying 'contains,' though it does not explicitly state side effects or response format.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by operational details. No filler or redundant information.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: what data is returned (IDs), the timeframe (yesterday), the refresh schedule, and access requirements. It does not specify the exact return format (e.g., array vs. object), but for a simple no-param tool, the description is sufficiently complete.

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, so the description does not need to add parameter meaning. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not detract from that.

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 contains IDs of jobs flagged as expired yesterday, specifying the timeframe and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting yesterday's expired jobs and the subscription requirement, though the verb 'contains' is less action-oriented than 'lists' or 'returns'.

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 a clear prerequisite (Ultra or Mega subscription) and the update cadence (daily at 01:30 UTC), which helps with when to call. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_jobs_24h or get_jobs_7_days, leaving it to the reader to infer the right use case.

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