job_add

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a real side effect beyond storage: the posting is classified and scored, which means derived data is created. It says nothing about deduplication if the posting already exists, what happens when both or neither parameter is supplied (both are optional), permissions, or failure behavior, so significant behavioral gaps remain for a write tool.

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, front-loaded with the action and input forms, with the routing context in parenthesis rather than as preamble. No redundant restatement of the tool name and no filler.

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 low-complexity two-parameter tool this is close to adequate, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say what the caller gets back and where the new posting ends up (reachable via job_get/jobs_list, presumably). That linkage to the sibling retrieval tools is the main missing piece.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does partially: it maps the two bare parameters to "URL" versus "pasted text" and frames them as alternatives ("or"). It never says whether supplying both is valid, whether one is required, or what format text should take, leaving the zero-required-parameter ambiguity unresolved.

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?

"Add a posting by URL or pasted text" names a specific verb (add) and resource (a job posting) plus the two accepted input forms, and "for anything the search missed" distinguishes it from jobs_search/jobs_fetch. "Classifies and scores it" discloses the secondary transformation the tool performs, so an agent knows this is not a plain store operation.

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 parenthetical "for anything the search missed, e.g. a LinkedIn link" gives a concrete triggering condition and implicitly routes the agent to jobs_search first. It does not state when not to use it (e.g. duplicates of jobs already in the system), so it falls short of a full when/when-not/alternatives breakdown.

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