organization_job_postings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'gets' data, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, or what 'current' means (e.g., time frame, active vs. archived). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose. The 'Useful for' sentence adds value, and the Args/Returns sections are clear, though slightly redundant with the output schema. No wasted sentences, but minor structural improvements could integrate information more seamlessly.

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 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context on behavioral aspects like data freshness or error handling, which would be helpful despite the output schema.

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 description adds meaningful context for the single parameter by specifying it's an 'Apollo organization ID', which clarifies the expected format beyond the schema's generic 'string' type. With 0% schema description coverage and only one parameter, this adequately compensates, though it could detail ID sourcing or validation.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current job postings for an organization'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'organization_search' or 'organization_enrich', which could also relate to organization data but serve different purposes.

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. While it mentions usefulness for 'identifying growth signals and finding the right contacts', this is too vague and doesn't help an agent choose between this and other organization-related tools like 'organization_search' or 'people_search' for similar goals.

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