add_job_posting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states the action of adding a posting without mentioning side effects, required prior data (e.g., company existence), or what the result is. This is minimal disclosure for a write operation.

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 short sentences, with the action stated upfront and the purpose clarified next. No filler or redundant information.

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?

The tool has a simple create action with self-describing schema, but there is no output schema or annotations, and the description does not explain what the response will be or any prerequisites. It's adequate for a straightforward add operation but leaves some gaps about the effect and the required company context.

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?

All four parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the description is not required to elaborate. It does add a connection to 'company' and 'roles', but this is already implied by company_id and title. The description does not add syntax or details beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 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 verb ('Add') and resource ('a job posting for a company'), and the second sentence explains the intended use for tracking application roles, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_companies or generate_email.

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?

It provides a reason to use the tool ('Use this to track specific roles you're applying to') but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. The use case is implied rather than explicit about exclusions.

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