jobs_teamtailor_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states the tool is a read operation (list), public and credential-free, and explains the company parameter derivation. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or response size limitations, which would be useful.

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: main action, details on normalization and filtering, and company identification. No unnecessary words or redundancy. Front-loaded with the primary purpose.

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 the lack of output schema, the description mentions 'normalized to the shared Job shape with detail inline', providing some output context. It also notes the credential-free nature. Could be improved by briefly describing the job shape structure or linking to a common schema.

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% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the 'company' param as the Teamtailor subdomain and confirms optional filtering. This supplements the schema without redundancy.

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 lists a company's Teamtailor job board, specifying the output format (normalized to shared Job shape) and the source (public JSON feed). It distinctly identifies the ATS type (Teamtailor), differentiating it from sibling job board tools for other ATS systems.

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 clearly indicates when to use the tool (to list jobs from a Teamtailor board) and notes it requires no credentials. While it doesn't explicitly list alternatives among siblings, the specificity to Teamtailor implies its niche. Missing explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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