jobs_pinpoint_board

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does well by disclosing the operation is public, credential-free, and returns JSON. It also describes the inline detail fields, giving a clear picture of what the agent will receive. It does not discuss rate limits or failure modes, but for a simple read-only public API, this is sufficient.

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?

Two sentences with no fluff. The first states the action, the second explains the parameter and adds the credential-free/public JSON note. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 one-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool lists, what fields are included, how to identify the tenant, and the auth requirements. No gaps are apparent.

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 already describes 'company' as 'Pinpoint tenant subdomain (careers URL),' and the description adds the exact URL template https://{company}.pinpointhq.com/, which clarifies how to construct the parameter. This goes beyond the schema's baseline and helps an agent correctly invoke the tool.

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 'List a tenant's Pinpoint job board,' a specific verb+resource that immediately identifies the tool's function. It further distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly naming 'Pinpoint' (pinpointhq.com) and detailing the returned data (full HTML description, responsibilities, skills, benefits, compensation).

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 by stating the tool accesses 'public' and 'credential-free' postings, and it explains how to derive the 'company' parameter from the careers URL format. However, it does not explicitly mention alternative tools or exclusions, so it lacks the 'when-not-to-use' guidance that would earn a 5.

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