get_company_jobs

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

Annotations already declare the safe read-only, non-destructive, closed-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: results are 'compact' (lightweight payloads) and the cursor is opaque and must be passed unchanged with the same companyId, which tells the agent how pagination must be driven.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core purpose front-loaded and the cursor caveat immediately after. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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, return-value detail is unnecessary, and annotations cover the safety profile; the description supplies the remaining critical operational detail (cursor reuse with the same companyId). It does not clarify pagination termination or what 'compact' omits, leaving a small gap.

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, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema's 'Opaque continuation cursor' by specifying it must be passed unchanged and paired with the same companyId. It says nothing extra about limit or companyId, so it is not a full 5.

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 ('Get'), resource ('public jobs') and scope ('for one published company'), which clearly separates it from company-level siblings like get_company or search_companies. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from get_jobs, search_jobs, or get_similar_jobs, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'for one published company' implies the required precondition (you need a companyId for a published company), but there is no explicit when-to-use versus search_jobs/get_jobs guidance and no stated exclusions. Usage is inferable but not spelled out.

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