tes_job_employer

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It does disclose that results are 'normalized detail' and that only 'currently-open position' listings are returned, which is useful. However, it does not mention error behavior, data availability, rate limits, or explicitly confirm the read-only nature beyond the verb 'Get.'

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 dense but mostly efficient, front-loading the main action and then enumerating return fields and the id derivation example. It is a single long sentence, but every clause adds necessary information, and the mention of tes-job-detail routing earns its place.

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?

Even without an output schema or annotations, the description fully specifies the return contents: name, location, school details, about text, postal address, and open positions with id/title/url. It also explains how to get the input id and how to follow up with tes-job-detail, making it complete for a single-parameter tool.

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 only says 'Tes employer id,' but the description adds substantial meaning: the id is numeric, it is the trailing id in tes-job-detail's employer_url field, and a concrete example (epsom-college-1039424 -> 1039424) is provided. This gives the agent everything needed to extract and pass the id correctly.

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 a specific verb and resource ('Get a Tes jobs employer profile') and clearly defines its scope: one jobs employer profile by numeric id. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tes-job-detail by explaining what each tool is for and which one to call for full postings.

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 implies when to use this tool: when you need an employer profile and its currently-open positions. It also names the alternative tes-job-detail and tells the agent to call it with each returned position id for the full posting, which is strong routing guidance, though it stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use statement.

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