List Keka Job Openings

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond that: it states the data comes from Keka Hire's Recruitment module, that the result set is unfiltered ('all job openings'), and it enumerates the exact returned fields and allowed output formats. This is meaningful behavioral context for a read-only list tool.

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 well-structured with a clear first sentence followed by a compact Args block, a Returns line, and a routing hint. It is slightly redundant with the schema, but every section earns its place and the most important scoping sentence is front-loaded.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explicitly lists the returned fields (ID, title, department, location, status, number of openings, posted date, closing date, hiring manager), all parameter defaults, the output format choices, and a pointer to the relevant sibling tool. For a simple read-only list operation, nothing essential is missing.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents pageSize, response_format, and default values. The description's Args section mostly restates the same information (defaults, max 200, markdown/json), with no additional semantic explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter documentation burden.

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 verb and resource: 'Retrieve all job openings from Keka Hire (Recruitment module).' This clearly identifies what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like keka_list_leave_types or keka_list_departments. The scope 'all job openings' is explicit and matches the title.

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 direct usage guidance: use this tool to retrieve all job openings, and closes with 'Use keka_list_candidates to see candidates for a specific job.' This names an alternative and the condition for choosing it, making the decision between siblings explicit.

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