jobs_company_search

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses parallel probing, reports non-empty boards with open-role count and URL, and explains Workday exclusion with specific reasons (needs tenant+datacenter+site). It also states credential-free public ATS JSON usage.

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 a single paragraph of three sentences, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: purpose, method details, and exclusion reasoning. No redundant information.

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?

Without an output schema, the description effectively communicates what is returned (providers, open-role count, board URL) and why Workday is excluded. It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but overall it is complete for the tool's complexity.

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 single parameter 'slug' has 100% schema description coverage ('Company careers slug to probe'). The tool description adds context on how slug is used but does not significantly extend the schema's own meaning, resulting in a baseline score.

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 verb 'Find', the resource 'which ATS a company uses', and the input 'by slug'. It names the specific ATS probed (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, SmartRecruiters) and excludes Workday, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that target individual ATS or jobs.

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 implies usage when you have a company slug and want to identify its ATS. It explicitly states Workday is excluded due to its board requirements, guiding users to avoid this tool for Workday. While it does not explicitly list alternative tools, the context from siblings provides such options.

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