list_job_openings

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden; it explicitly self-declares 'Read-only', which is the key safety signal, and explains the domain model (a job can have multiple openings, each with its own status). It says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or pagination, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Front-loads purpose and the read-only flag well, but the middle sentence enumerates every returned field (id, opening_id, open, status, close_reason_id, application_id, target_start_on, custom_fields), which is largely duplicated by the existing output schema and adds length without new decision-relevant 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 description covers purpose, read-only behavior, the entity model, the parameter prerequisite, and field meaning; with an output schema present it need not describe return values, so nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining the optional status filter's domain context ('open'/'closed' lifecycle) and by telling the agent where to source job_id, which the schema only labels 'Greenhouse job ID'.

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 and resource ('List openings (headcount) for a job') and immediately distinguishes itself from sibling mutations like create_job_opening, update_job_opening, and bulk_delete_job_openings as a read operation.

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?

Provides real routing guidance: 'To find job_id: list_jobs → match by name', which tells the agent how to obtain the required parameter. It does not, however, contrast with alternatives such as get_job_opening for a single opening or explain when a status filter is preferable.

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