What's Promising

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses that the tool returns text with job details and provides instructions for scoring. It implies a read-only operation, which is consistent. Could be slightly more explicit about side effects, but the context suggests no mutation.

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 a single paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, usage, and alternatives. It is front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence adds value, though slightly verbose; still very effective.

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?

Given no output schema and one optional parameter, the description fully explains what the tool returns (textual listing of jobs) and how to use it in the broader workflow (evaluating, rescoring, displaying). It covers all necessary context for an agent to use it correctly.

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 only parameter 'limit' is fully described in the input schema (max unscored jobs, default 15). The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the tool lists the current job board with scored and unscored jobs. It uses specific verb 'list' and resource 'job board', and distinguishes from siblings like find_jobs (brand-new jobs) and rescore_board (rescoring already scored jobs).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use this to review jobs already found (find_jobs only returns brand-new ones).' Also specifies alternatives: rescore_board for re-scoring, show_board for displaying to user, evaluate_jobs for scoring unscored jobs.

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