submit_findings

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

The description discloses that the tool will dedupe, score against the profile, and persist the findings, giving a clear behavioral model. It also states a hard requirement for each finding (url + title). Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden and does so adequately, though it omits error handling and permission requirements.

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?

Two concise sentences with no filler. The main action is front-loaded ('Ingest'), and every phrase adds value, making it highly efficient.

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 is simple with only two parameters, and the description covers the purpose, processing steps, and a key validation rule. An output schema exists, so return values are not needed. Minor gaps remain around prerequisites (e.g., source existence), but these are common sense for the domain.

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 description provides crucial semantic info for the 'findings' parameter by requiring at least url + title, which is not in the schema. The 'source_slug' parameter is implied by 'from a source', but not explicitly detailed. Given 0% schema coverage, this description partially compensates for the missing parameter documentation.

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 verb ('Ingest') and resource ('postings/findings'), and explains the pipeline: deduped, scored, and persisted. The phrase 'YOU extracted' distinguishes it from URL-based import tools like import_from_url_findings, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 implies usage when the agent has already extracted postings from a source, as opposed to importing via URL. It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some room for interpretation.

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