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

No annotations, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose the mutation ('Muda o status') and a real side effect beyond the schema — an optional note is stored with a date — but says nothing about permissions, whether the previous note is overwritten, or what happens if vaga_id is invalid.

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?

One tightly written sentence, front-loaded with the core action, with the parenthetical value list earning its length as the only enum documentation available. Zero filler.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the definition covers the essentials (action, allowed statuses, note side effect) but omits error behavior, overwrite/reversibility semantics, and confirmation of what is returned.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It usefully enumerates the allowed status values (critical, since the schema defines status as a free string with no enum) and clarifies that nota is optional and timestamped, but vaga_id is left unexplained. Partial but meaningful compensation.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Muda o status de uma vaga') and enumerates the valid status values in parentheses, so the agent knows exactly what domain action this is. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like registrar_vaga or listar_vagas, but the action is distinct enough to be inferred.

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?

Usage is implied: this tool applies to an already-existing vaga identified by vaga_id, in contrast to registrar_vaga (creation) or listar_vagas (read). No explicit when-to-use/when-not or reference to alternatives is given, so routing is left to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Lista' implies a read operation, but the description does not state read-only safety, permissions, side effects, pagination, or any behavioral trait beyond the basic action.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently packs the purpose, filter options, and parameter values.

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 low complexity (a simple list with two optional filters), no annotations, and an output schema that handles return values, the description is largely complete. Minor gaps include default behavior when no filters are provided and result ordering.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It enumerates the possible status values (encontrada, aplicada, entrevista, teste_tecnico, oferta, recusada, desisti) and clarifies that 'empresa' matches part of the company name, adding substantial meaning beyond the bare string type in the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lista') and resource ('vagas'), and names the optional filter criteria. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like resumo_do_funil or vagas_paradas, but the purpose is clear.

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?

Describes optional filter conditions (status or partial company name), implying when to use those filters, but gives no guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as resumo_do_funil or vagas_paradas. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a write/create operation but says nothing about duplicate handling, required permissions, side effects, or what is returned on success.

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?

Extremely short and front-loaded, with the core action stated first and parameter hints following. The fragmentary style wastes no words, though it borders on under-specification.

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 7-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no schema-level descriptions, this one-line description is not sufficient to call the tool confidently. The return value and duplicate behavior are unknown.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and only partially does. It usefully defines 'modelo' values (remoto|hibrido|presencial) and gives platform examples (Gupy, LinkedIn), but leaves cargo, empresa, nivel, link, and notas entirely undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Registra uma vaga'), which is clearly distinct from siblings like listar_vagas or atualizar_status. However, it never names or contrasts with those siblings, so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 word 'encontrada' hints at the trigger (after finding a job posting), but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives such as atualizar_status for existing entries, and no prerequisites.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the aggregate covers (statuses and stage-to-stage conversion rates) but says nothing about read-only behavior, required permissions, filtering/window of the data, or refresh behavior. For an analytics tool with zero annotation coverage this is thin.

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?

One compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose. It is a fragment without an explicit verb, but no words are wasted and the funnel stages are enumerated inline rather than padded out.

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 zero-argument tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable idea of the subject matter but not the shape of the return (per-status counts, conversion-rate definitions) or the scope of the data. No annotations or output schema exist to fill the gap, so it is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 defines zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. The description appropriately uses its space to describe the output dimension (funnel stages) instead of parameter syntax.

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?

States a clear resource and content: totals by status and conversion rates for the funnel stages aplicada -> entrevista -> teste técnico -> oferta. An agent can tell it produces aggregate funnel metrics rather than listing records. It does not, however, contrast itself with the sibling tools that manipulate vagas.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus listar_vagas, vagas_paradas, or atualizar_status, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. The agent must infer that this is a read-only analytics view simply because it takes no arguments.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the status filter and the staleness threshold that define the query, but says nothing about ordering, result limits, or whether 'novidade' includes only status changes or any update.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the status filter front-loaded and the threshold qualifier last. No filler and nothing redundant.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a one-optional-parameter read tool the description covers the core selection logic; only the precise definition of 'novidade' and result ordering remain unstated.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% and the schema only labels the field 'Dias' with default 10, so the description must compensate. It does: `dias` is defined as the minimum gap since the last update for an application to count as stalled, which is genuine semantic value beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific filter: candidaturas with status 'aplicada' and no update for at least `dias` days, characterized as follow-up candidates. The narrow predicate clearly distinguishes it from the broader listar_vagas, even though no sibling is named explicitly.

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 parenthetical '(candidatas a follow-up)' implies the use case, so intent is inferable, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement, no prerequisite, and no mention of when to prefer listar_vagas or resumo_do_funil instead.

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