nayori_open_jobs

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with 'Read-only.' It adds meaningful behavioral detail beyond annotations: exact statuses (0/1), the 'no provider assigned' condition, and that application counts are included.

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?

Three concise sentences deliver the core purpose, eligibility rules, parameter hint, and safety note without repetition. Information is front-loaded and every sentence adds value.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented optional parameters and clear annotations, the description is complete. It states what is listed, the filtering semantics, and the output concept (application counts), so an agent can invoke it correctly without requiring an output schema.

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?

The schema provides 100% description coverage for both parameters, including the asset enum and limit bounds. The description restates the asset filter semantics but does not need to add more because the schema already carries the load.

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 uses a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('Nayori jobs'), and precise eligibility criteria ('status 0 or 1, no provider assigned'). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like nayori_get_job and nayori_list_applications.

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 clearly states the context: a provider agent looking for jobs they can still apply to. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the context is unambiguous enough for correct selection.

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