freelance_list_org_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden. It discloses the READ_OWN permission and the inclusion of ORGANIZATION-visibility postings, which is useful. However, it does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects, leaving some ambiguity for a list operation.

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-loads the most important scoping detail (own organization, includes ORGANIZATION-visibility), and states the permission and use case. There is no wasted text.

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 list tool with a single filter parameter and no output schema, the description covers the key elements: what it returns, who can use it (READ_OWN), and when to use it (before reading proposals). It does not specify return format or error handling, but these are reasonably inferable from the tool name and schema, so it is mostly 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 description does not discuss parameters, but the input schema provides detailed descriptions for each sub-property of the filter object (e.g., sort, limit, offset, search, status, category). While the top-level filter lacks a description, the schema effectively documents the parameters, so the description adds no extra meaning but does not need to; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 lists the organization's own job postings, including ORGANIZATION-visibility ones the public search never returns. It uses a specific verb ('list') with a clear resource ('org jobs') and distinguishes itself from the public search, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

It provides explicit guidance: use it to find the posting id before reading proposals, and implies it is for the hiring side's internal list. It contrasts with the public search but does not name an alternative sibling tool like freelance_search_jobs, so a slight deduction.

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