Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), which implies it's likely safe and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or describe any side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly. This is an excellent example of conciseness in tool descriptions.

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 that there's an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and a simple single-parameter input schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks guidance on usage, parameter details, and behavioral context. For a retrieval tool in a complex system with many siblings, it should do more to help the agent navigate alternatives and understand nuances.

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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic context. The description doesn't mention the 'office_id' parameter at all, failing to compensate for the schema's lack of documentation. However, since there's only one required parameter and its purpose is somewhat inferable from the tool name, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate—adequate but with clear gaps.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a single office from the job board'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'get_office' or 'list_board_offices', which appears to be a similar retrieval operation for offices. The description is specific but lacks sibling differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_office' or 'list_board_offices'. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name and parameters alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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