jobs_gem_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context: 'Credential-free public GraphQL' (no auth needed), 'public' scope, and details on what is returned (full HTML description, compensation when available). This goes beyond a simple 'list' statement, though it does not cover all edge behaviors like pagination or error handling.

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, roughly 40 words, with no fluff. The first sentence is a concise statement of purpose, and the second provides essential details about the posting content and the parameter derivation. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description is sufficient. It explains what the tool returns, how to specify the input, and the auth requirement. Given the low complexity, this is complete and comparable to high-scoring calibration examples.

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% for the single 'company' parameter, and the description reiterates the same guidance ('Gem vanity URL slug from its careers URL'). Since the schema already fully documents the parameter, the description adds no new semantic value beyond repetition, warranting the baseline score of 3.

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 a company's Gem job board postings with inline detail. It names the specific platform (Gem/gem.com), distinguishing it from sibling job board tools like Greenhouse or Lever. The verb 'List' and resource 'Gem job board' are specific and unambiguous.

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 provides clear context on when to use the tool: to retrieve a company's public Gem board postings. It also explains how to identify the company parameter (Gem vanity URL slug from careers URL). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of a 5.

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