jobs_smartrecruiters_postings

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that it is 'Credential-free' (no auth) and 'public ATS JSON' (output format). It mentions pagination (limit/offset). It does not cover error handling, rate limits, or edge cases like invalid company IDs, but these are minor for a simple read endpoint.

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, but the first two are almost identical ('List a company's SmartRecruiters postings' and 'Lists a company's public SmartRecruiters postings...'), creating minor redundancy. Apart from that, it is efficient and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

No output schema is provided, so the description should explain the response format. It only says 'Credential-free public ATS JSON,' lacking detail on fields returned (e.g., title, location, date). For a listing tool, response structure is crucial, making this incomplete.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for each parameter. The description adds value by explaining the company parameter as 'the SmartRecruiters identifier from its careers URL,' clarifying how to obtain it. For limit/offset, it reiterates pagination but adds no new detail beyond the schema. Overall, it enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 tool name and description clearly state it 'List a company's SmartRecruiters postings,' with a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from siblings like jobs_greenhouse_board by specifying the ATS (SmartRecruiters) and public nature. The repetition in the description is minor.

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 when to use: when you need public SmartRecruiters postings from a company. It explains how to find the company identifier (from careers URL). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for authenticated or internal postings) or mention alternatives among siblings, leaving the agent to infer.

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