jobs_hiring_signals

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

With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden. It explains the tool aggregates public ATS data into a snapshot, provides input requirements (provider + slug params), and states it is credential-free. However, it omits details like caching, rate limits, 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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the main purpose and conveys all essential information efficiently.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value components (total open roles, breakdowns, remote share, new roles). It lacks format details (e.g., data types) but covers the main fields sufficiently for a tool of this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters as 'slug params' (token, company, org, tenant+datacenter+site) and explaining that breakdowns are computed server-side, which is not obvious from individual parameter 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 hiring signals into a snapshot, listing specific breakdowns (total open roles, department/location/title, remote share, new roles in 7/30 days). It uses a specific verb ('aggregate') and resource ('hiring signals for a company's board'), distinguishing it from sibling tools that fetch raw board data.

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 for aggregate overviews ('aggregates a company's ATS board into a hiring snapshot') and mentions it is 'credential-free public ATS JSON', but lacks explicit comparison to sibling tools like jobs_greenhouse_board or jobs_ashby_board. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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