jobs_recruitee_offers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses credential-free access and public data, implying read-only behavior. It does not mention rate limits or other constraints, but the essential safety traits are covered.

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?

Three concise sentences, all informative and front-loaded with the purpose. No redundant text.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, the required company identifier, and optional filters. It mentions 'detail is inline' and 'ATS JSON', but does not specify the output structure (e.g., array of objects). For a simple list tool, this is mostly adequate.

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%, and the description adds value by clarifying that 'company' is the Recruitee subdomain from the careers URL. Filters are listed but largely repeat 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 it lists Recruitee offers with optional filters, and explains the company parameter. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling tool 'jobs_recruitee_offer' (singular), which likely retrieves a single offer.

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 listing public Recruitee offers but provides no guidelines on when to use alternatives or when not to use this tool. It lacks explicit 'when to use' context.

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