List jobs

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses specific matching semantics: case-insensitive exact match for status, case-insensitive substring for company, and inclusive date range. This is valuable behavioral detail beyond a simple 'list'. It does not mention return format, ordering, or pagination, but the read-only nature of 'list' is clear.

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 with the main purpose front-loaded, and the filter details follow logically. Every clause adds value, and there is no redundant or vague language. It is concise and well-structured.

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 tool's simplicity (4 optional parameters, no required params, no output schema), the description covers the essential behaviors and filter semantics thoroughly. It does not mention ordering or pagination, but these are often implied for a list operation. The lack of explicit return-format information is a minor gap, but overall it is close to complete for this 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema: it explains that status is case-insensitive exact match, company is case-insensitive substring, and the date range is inclusive. This clarifies how the parameters behave, raising the score to 4.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'tracked job applications', with optional filters. It explicitly distinguishes this from getting a single job (get_job) and from search_jobs, which likely has different search behavior. The scope 'all tracked job applications' is precise and unambiguous.

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 to list job applications with optional filters. It provides a strong context of use but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it. However, the purpose is clear enough that an agent can infer appropriate usage without explicit exclusions.

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