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. It mentions 'List all schools' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by parameters), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'force_refresh' does. For a read operation with parameters, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool, earning full marks for conciseness.

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 low complexity (a read operation), 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details on parameters, usage context, and behavioral traits, though the output schema might cover return values. It's complete enough for basic understanding but has clear gaps.

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 description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It adds no meaning beyond the schema—doesn't explain what 'per_page', 'page', or 'force_refresh' do, their typical values, or how they affect the listing. With 3 parameters and no param info in the description, it fails to compensate for the low coverage.

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 ('List all schools') and the resource ('available for candidate education records'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_board_schools' or 'list_degrees' which might list similar educational entities, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 related to education and schools (e.g., 'list_board_schools', 'list_degrees'), there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions for this specific tool.

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