jobs_ashby_board

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that unknown orgs return an empty board (not a 404), that it is credential-free and public ATS JSON, and that inline detail includes description and compensation when requested. These are key behaviors 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: the first states the main purpose, the second elaborates on details, parameter behavior, and edge case (unknown org). No unnecessary words, all information is relevant and front-loaded.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains that output includes inline detail (description, compensation) and is JSON. It covers input behavior and edge cases. For a simple two-parameter tool, this is reasonably 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining that 'org' is the Ashby slug from the careers URL, and that 'include_compensation=true' enables compensation details. This clarifies the parameters beyond the bare schema descriptions.

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 'List an organization's Ashby job board' with verb 'list' and resource 'job board'. It specifies inline detail and optional compensation inclusion. The org parameter is explicitly defined as 'Ashby slug from its careers URL', distinguishing it from sibling tools like jobs_greenhouse_board.

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 indicates this is for Ashby job boards and mentions credential-free access, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus other job board tools in the sibling list (e.g., jobs_greenhouse_board, jobs_lever_posting). No when-not guidance or alternatives provided.

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