list_job_posts_for_job

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 does declare 'Read-only', which is a genuine safety disclosure, and enumerates the returned fields (title, content, live status, public_url, application questions, locations). It says nothing about pagination, result limits, or what happens when a job has no posts.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the read-only guarantee, followed by the prerequisite hint and return contents. Every sentence earns its place with no 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?

An output schema exists, so the description is not obligated to enumerate return fields, yet it does so helpfully. Combined with the read-only declaration and job_id discovery hint, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; only pagination/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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?

With 100% schema coverage the baseline would be 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain job_id (via list_jobs and matching by name) — a navigation hint the schema does not provide. The single required integer parameter is otherwise fully documented 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 ('List') and resource ('job posts') and scopes it to 'a specific job', which implicitly separates it from the sibling list_job_posts (all posts) and get_job_post_for_job. However, it never names those siblings explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary rather than being told it.

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?

It gives a useful prerequisite hint — 'To find job_id: list_jobs → match by name' — which tells the agent how to satisfy the required parameter. But it offers no when-to-use/when-not guidance relative to list_job_posts or get_job_post_for_job, leaving the routing decision to inference.

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