Jobs by company

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral context. It correctly states the tool returns open jobs and that the company identifier is a slug, but it does not describe response format, pagination behavior, or any other operational traits. For a simple read-only list style tool this is adequate but not richly 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 short, well structured, and every sentence carries meaning. The core behavior is stated first, followed by the essential slug guidance, with no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 simple list-by-company tool with full schema parameter documentation and no output schema, the description provides enough context for an agent to select and invoke it. It could be more complete with explicit sibling differentiation or a note about return content, but the current level is sufficient for the tool's low complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds extra value by explaining what the company value actually is: a slug, with a concrete example ('2brains' for getonbrd.com/companies/2brains).

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 identifies the action ('List open jobs') and the resource scope ('published by one company'), so an agent understands what the tool does. It does not explicitly name sibling tools, but the company-specific framing distinguishes it from the broader search and category tools.

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 implies the right usage scenario: use it when jobs for a specific company are needed, using the company slug. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with search_jobs or jobs_by_category, or state when those alternatives should be preferred.

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