jobs_company_search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the parallel probing behavior, that it reports only providers with non-empty boards, the output contents (open-role count and board URL), and that it is credential-free public ATS JSON. It also explains why Workday is excluded, providing useful 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 three sentences, with the purpose stated first, then the operational detail, then the exclusion and auth note. Every sentence contributes unique information with no redundancy.

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 has one parameter and no output schema, and the description explains the return contents (providers, open-role count, board URL) and the query condition (non-empty board). The exclusion of Workday and the credential-free note round out the necessary context for an agent to invoke 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?

The schema covers the single parameter with a description 'Company careers slug to probe,' which already matches the description's use of 'by slug.' The description does not add any additional syntax, examples, or semantics beyond the schema, so it adds no value beyond the structured field.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Find which ATS a company uses by slug.' It enumerates the exact ATS providers probed and reports the result with open-role count and board URL, clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that target a single ATS board (e.g., 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?

It states the context: probing multiple ATS in parallel for a slug, and explicitly excludes Workday due to its additional requirements, which is a form of guidance. However, it does not explicitly compare against the single-ATS sibling tools, so the 'when to use vs alternatives' is implied rather than stated.

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