greenhouse_default_office_id

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions routing and scoping (JWT, tenant, company) but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or what side effects occur. The actual operation is unexplained.

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 but imprecise. It uses generic wording like 'connector operation' and does not provide any substantive information. It is under-specified rather than concise, wasting the opportunity to inform the agent.

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?

Despite having an output schema (presumably), the description does not explain what the tool returns or how the arguments affect the result. The simplicity of the tool (one parameter) does not excuse the lack of completeness; a proper description should clarify purpose and usage.

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 sole parameter 'arguments' is a JSON string defaulting to '{}', with 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what fields or values the JSON should contain, leaving the agent without guidance on how to use the parameter. Baseline for 0% coverage requires the description to compensate, which it fails to do.

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 merely states it is a Greenhouse connector operation named 'default_office_id' but does not explicitly state what the tool does. It is nearly a tautology, repeating the name without adding clarity. Sibling tools like greenhouse_default_department_id have similar naming but no distinction is provided.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention context, prerequisites, or when not to use it. With many sibling tools, this omission is significant.

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