scan_ats_b2b_hiring_signals

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and mostly does not meet it. It does not say whether board lists are required or how defaults are chosen, whether calls are rate-limited or credentialed, how results are ordered or capped (maxJobs exists but is unexplained), or how 'buying intent' is inferred. Only 'live' conveys any behavioral signal.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally clean. However, the terseness works against the tool: the sentence is dense with taxonomy while omitting operational essentials, so brevity here reads as under-specification rather than discipline.

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?

Placeholder.

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, and it largely does not. It names three board sources but the schema exposes only greenhouseBoards and ashbyBoards — Lever has no corresponding parameter — and the four intent categories (AI/Data, Security, RevOps, Cloud) map to no parameter at all. maxJobs and keywordFilter are never touched, leaving every parameter's meaning and default behavior unexplained.

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?

Specific verb (Fetch) plus resource (live job postings), enumerated sources (Greenhouse, Ashby, Lever), and an output framing (B2B department buying intent with four named categories). An agent knows exactly what it gets back at a semantic level. No sibling routing is stated, but the siblings listed are unrelated tools (enrichment, Polymarket, CISA, KYB, news), so confusion risk is low.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The word 'live' hints at real-time signal scanning, but nothing tells an agent under what task conditions this tool is the right pick.

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