List Job Listings

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It outlines the response fields and points to get_job for deeper detail, but it does not disclose any potential side effects, pagination behavior, or rate limits. Since this is a simple read/list operation, the lack of additional caution is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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, front-loading the main action and then pointing to an alternative. Every phrase adds value; there is no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

For a list tool with 16 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, mentions the return fields, and names the natural next step (get_job). It could note that filters are optional or that all jobs are returned if no filters are given, but the schema already implies this. Overall, it provides enough context for an agent to use the tool effectively.

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 each parameter described in detail, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema; it only names the return fields. It doesn't clarify relationships like whether filters are cumulative, but that's not required given the schema's thoroughness.

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's function: 'Get recruitment job listings with title, department, location, position, publish dates and flags.' It names specific fields and explicitly contrasts with get_job, which is used 'for full detail,' distinguishing list_jobs from its sibling.

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 gives direct usage guidance by stating, 'Use get_job with the job id/slug for full detail including application form, scorecard and pipeline stages.' This clearly tells the agent when to use an alternative tool, implying list_jobs is for quick, summarized listings.

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