jobs_hiring_signals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool is credential-free, uses public ATS JSON, and that breakdowns are computed over fetched postings. It does not detail pagination, error handling, or provider-specific limitations, but covers the key access and computational traits.

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, front-loaded with the main purpose, and includes only relevant details. Minor redundancy between the first two sentences ('Aggregate hiring signals' vs 'Aggregates... hiring snapshot') but otherwise efficient.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers purpose, parameter selection, computed metrics, and credential-free access. It does not specify exact output field names, but enumerates the metrics returned, making it 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters by provider type ('token / company / org / tenant+datacenter+site / domain'), clarifying that only provider-relevant params are needed. This goes beyond individual 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 the tool aggregates a company's ATS board into a hiring snapshot with specific metrics (total open roles, breakdowns by department/location/title, remote share, new roles in 7/30 days). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch raw job data (e.g., jobs_greenhouse_board, jobs_workday_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 provides usage context ('Aggregate hiring signals... a leading indicator of company growth') and instructs to supply provider plus provider-specific slug params. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over sibling board-fetching tools or list exclusions.

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