find_company_board

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the underlying problem (APIs require board names, no directory exists) but does not describe the tool's own behavior—such as return format, error handling, or ambiguity handling. While context is provided, explicit tool behavior is missing, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the following paragraphs offer valuable domain context about why the tool is necessary and when to use it. The length is justified, though it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning. It reads naturally and every sentence contributes.

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?

For a tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: it explains the problem, the usage condition, and implies the return value (the ATS name). It lacks an explicit description of the return structure, but that's minor given the simple nature of the tool. A 4 reflects solid coverage.

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%, with both 'company' and 'limit' already well-described in the schema. The description text adds no additional parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 applies because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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 a specific, unambiguous action: 'Find which applicant-tracking system a company's careers page runs on.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_open_jobs by focusing on identification rather than job listing. It also adds context about the practical need for the tool, making its purpose obvious.

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 gives an explicit usage condition: 'Use this first when you have a company name rather than a careers URL.' This directs the agent on when to invoke it. However, it does not name alternative tools (e.g., compare_companies, list_open_jobs) or provide explicit 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls just short of a 5.

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