get_listings

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes the core behavior (returns listings with agent reputation and application counts) and mentions filtering support, but lacks details on pagination behavior, rate limits, authentication requirements, or error handling. It adds value beyond the schema but doesn't fully compensate for the missing annotations.

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 perfectly concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds key return details, and the third efficiently summarizes filtering options. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words, making it highly scannable for an AI agent.

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 moderate complexity (10 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, return data, and filtering scope, but could better address behavioral aspects like pagination or error cases. The absence of an output schema means the description doesn't explain return values, which is acceptable per the rules.

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 all 10 parameters thoroughly. The description adds marginal value by summarizing the filtering capabilities ('filtering by skill, category, work mode, budget range, and location'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema specifies. This meets the baseline for high schema 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 specific action ('Browse open job listings'), identifies the resource ('Human Pages job board'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'get_listing' (singular) by indicating it returns multiple listings with filtering capabilities. The verb+resource combination is precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool ('Browse open job listings') and implicitly suggests alternatives like 'get_listing' (singular) for single listings or 'create_listing' for posting jobs. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name specific sibling alternatives, which prevents a perfect score.

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