jobs_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral load. It does disclose the important default that skipped/rejected jobs are filtered out unless status is supplied, plus the sort order (match score) and the underlying filter (English-only internships). It omits pagination behavior, how limit interacts with the feed, and whether results are cached or personalized, leaving meaningful gaps.

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 compact sentences with no filler; the core scoping (English internships, match-sorted feed) is front-loaded ahead of the conditional exclusion rule.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage mean the description has to do all the work for a four-parameter tool. It covers the feed's purpose and default filtering but leaves three of four parameters and the result shape (fields per job, ordering ties, empty result behavior) undefined.

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% across four parameters, so the description should compensate and largely does not. Only 'status' gains meaning (it reveals skipped/rejected entries); limit, source, and min_score are never explained, and the 'sorted by match score' phrase only loosely hints at min_score as a threshold.

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 characterizes the tool as 'the feed' of internships that are in English and require no Dutch, sorted by match score — a reasonably specific resource + filter combination. It implicitly separates itself from jobs_search and jobs_fetch through the 'feed' framing, but never states the verb ('list jobs') or names a sibling, so an agent must infer the distinction.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: this is the default browse view, and 'Skipped/rejected are hidden unless status is given' gives one concrete conditional for when to pass status. There is no guidance on when to prefer jobs_search or applications_list, and no prerequisites are mentioned.

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