Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description doesn't mention pagination, sorting, filtering capabilities, or what authentication/rate limits might apply. For a listing tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps about how the operation actually works.

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 without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool with no parameters. While it could be more informative, it's not verbose or poorly structured.

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 this is a simple listing tool with no parameters, an output schema exists, and no annotations are provided, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks context about what 'prospect post sections' are in this job board system, and with no annotations, it should ideally mention that this is a read-only operation. The existence of an output schema helps, but the description could provide more domain context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the absence of inputs. The description doesn't need to compensate for missing parameter documentation. A baseline of 4 is appropriate since there are no parameters to explain beyond what the schema already indicates.

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 'List prospect post sections on the job board' clearly states the action (list) and resource (prospect post sections), but it's somewhat vague about what 'prospect post sections' are and doesn't distinguish this tool from similar list_* siblings like list_job_posts or list_board_jobs. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity about the domain context.

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. With many sibling tools for listing various entities (e.g., list_job_posts, list_candidates), there's no indication of when prospect post sections are relevant or what distinguishes them from other listable resources. The description is purely functional without contextual usage information.

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