send_collection_summary

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the external side effect (sends to Discord) and notes that it batches results into one message rather than sending individual messages. However, it does not mention what happens on webhook failure, idempotency, or any rate-limit implications, leaving some gaps for a side-effect tool.

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, dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and usage. It packs a lot of relevant detail (what is aggregated, the delivery channel, and when to call) without extraneous words. It could be slightly more scannable, but it is appropriately sized for the tool.

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 batch summary sender, the description covers the essential operational context: what inputs it expects, how to invoke it, and what it produces. The only missing aspects are error-handling details (e.g., webhook failure) and any output confirmation, but given this is a fire-and-forget notification tool with no output schema, these are minor and do not impede correct 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 schema already describes all five parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond this: it explains that `results` is the ordered array of JSON outputs from each register_posting call, and it specifies that `reviewedCount` defaults to `results.length + excludedByCondition` when omitted. This extra semantic clarification earns a 4.

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 is explicit: it aggregates register_posting results, organizes them into tier status, new options, and review items, and sends a single summary via Discord webhook. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search_jobs, get_job_detail, and register_posting by stating the specific resource (collection batch results) and action (report via webhook).

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 provides a clear directive: call it only once after completing multiple registrations, implying it should not be called per registration. It does not explicitly state alternatives or exclusions, but the context makes it obvious this is the final reporting step, so the guidance is sufficient.

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