get_ats_jobs

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

Goes meaningfully beyond the annotations by disclosing that only public, login-free endpoints are hit, that Personio returns XML, that Workday requires a URL, and that repeated calls yield a delta of new/closed postings since the last fetch — which explains the non-readOnly, idempotent annotation profile. Return-field hints (Abteilung, Seniority, Anstellungsart) are also useful, though rate limits and failure modes (unknown slug, unsupported ATS) are unaddressed.

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?

Front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, then the platform list, then the added-value details. The ATS enumeration is long but scannable; nothing is truly redundant, though it could be tightened.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and annotations cover the safety profile. What it does provide — login-free sourcing, format quirks, delta semantics — is the right kind of context for a 6-parameter fetch tool; only the meaning of 'aktualisieren' and the max_jobs semantics are left entirely to the 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 67% and already documents ats auto-detection, ort, suchbegriff, and the company_slug URL/Workday requirement. The description adds essentially no parameter guidance — max_jobs and aktualisieren remain undocumented in both places, and the delta sentence only loosely implies what aktualisieren does.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: fetching open job postings directly from an employer's applicant-tracking system via public, login-free job-board APIs, and enumerates the nine supported ATS platforms. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling search_jobs or get_job_details, so an agent must infer the split.

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 phrase 'direkt aus dem Bewerbermanagement eines Arbeitgebers' implies the scenario (you know the employer/ATS slug and want their full board), and the delta note hints at polling. But there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as search_jobs for cross-employer keyword search.

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