vagas_paradas

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.