freelance_list_proposals_for_job

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates the operation is a read (listing) and discloses the permission (READ_OWN) and the refusal behavior for unauthorized postings. This gives the agent important behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 with zero fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the access constraint is stated clearly and efficiently. Every word adds value.

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?

The tool is simple (1 parameter, no output schema). The description covers the purpose, the permission, and a critical error case (refusal for unauthorized postings). The lack of an output schema means it need not explain return values, but one could argue it might mention that the list returns proposals with their statuses, but that's not critical for calling it correctly.

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 100%, so the single parameter is already documented as 'The job posting id'. The description adds no further detail on the parameter syntax or format, which is fine given the high coverage. The description's behavioral notes don't directly relate to the parameter, so a baseline of 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 that it lists all bids on an organization's job posting, framing it as the 'hiring side's applicant list'. It uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('proposals for a job') and immediately distinguishes it from related tools like freelance_list_my_proposals, which would be the freelancer's view.

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 explicitly states the requirement: the posting must belong to the caller's organization, and it warns that asking about another's posting is refused, not filtered. This provides clear guidance on when to use the tool and the access constraints, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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