jobs_analyze_external

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that FoundRole validates evidence, stores the client extraction separately, derives missing deterministic facts, and reports which values were provided, derived, accepted, rejected, or unknown. It also warns that the analysis is a decision aid, not a guarantee about sponsorship, legitimacy, compensation, or hiring outcome.

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 organized into three focused paragraphs: purpose, input semantics, and output/limitations. It is dense but every sentence contributes essential context—no filler or repeated schema content—making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 16 parameters, nested client_extraction object, and existing output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what the tool does, required vs optional input, the evidence-backed nature of client_extraction, the comparisonRef need for later jobs_compare calls, and the decision-aid disclaimer. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful context by explaining that the five text identity fields are required, all structured fact fields are optional, and fields absent from the source are simply omitted or null. It also clarifies that client_extraction must contain evidence-backed facts rather than inferences, which is not fully captured by 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?

The description opens with 'Analyzes one job found outside FoundRole using the authenticated user's FoundRole profile and the same signals used for FoundRole jobs,' which clearly specifies the verb, resource, and scope. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tracker_add_external by explicitly noting the save-without-analysis alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use tracker_add_external only when the user asks to save without analysis.' It also clarifies that the input must be the direct posting URL and all job content already available in the conversation, and that the five text identity fields are required while structured fact fields are optional.

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