Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions date range filtering but fails to describe important behaviors: pagination mechanics (implied by parameters but not explained), whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, rate limits, or what the output contains. For a list tool with 5 parameters, 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 gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a list operation and front-loads the core functionality.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (5 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema), the description provides basic functionality but leaves significant gaps. The output schema existence means return values don't need explanation, but the description should better address parameter purposes and behavioral context. It's minimally adequate but incomplete for optimal agent understanding.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the schema provides only parameter names and types without descriptions. The description mentions 'optional created date range filters' which hints at the purpose of 'created_after' and 'created_before' parameters, but completely ignores the pagination parameters ('per_page', 'page', 'paginate') that constitute 3 of the 5 parameters. This partial coverage fails to compensate for the schema's lack of descriptions.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all offers'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_offers_for_application' or 'get_offer' that might serve related purposes.

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 mentions 'optional created date range filters' which provides some context about when filtering might be useful, but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_offers_for_application' or 'get_offer' from the sibling list. No explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites are provided.

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