List Job Statuses

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: it returns 'compact rows' with 'id and label' and includes custom statuses. This tells the agent the output shape and scope. No contradictions with annotations.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence opens with a clear verb and resource, the second explains the return format and its purpose. Every word adds value, with no repetition of schema or annotation info.

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 the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, output schema present, no nested objects), the description fully covers what an agent needs to know: what statuses are listed, that they include custom ones, and the return format (id and label) for downstream use with search_jobs. There are no obvious gaps.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the rubric, 0 params get a baseline of 4. The description doesn't need to add parameter details since there are none, and it correctly focuses on return value semantics.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'Lists Recruit CRM job pipeline statuses'. It provides concrete examples (Open, Closed, On Hold) and notes custom statuses, making it distinct from sibling tools like list_hiring_pipelines. It also mentions the output fields, adding clarity.

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 gives clear context for when to use the tool: to resolve a status name to the numeric job_status_id used in search_jobs.job_status. It doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives, but it positions the tool as a lookup utility, which is sufficient for the simple zero-parameter nature of the tool.

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