discover_public_jobs

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses what the tool does NOT do (no login, no bypass, no scraping, no auto-apply), which is useful. However, it does not explicitly state whether the tool is read-only, whether it makes external network calls, or any potential side effects/rate limits. The exclusions give some transparency but leave gaps.

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 extremely concise: two sentences. The first sentence states the purpose and scope, the second provides important exclusions. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded with the essential purpose.

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 has 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It explains the overall function and explicitly notes what it does not do, which helps. However, it lacks guidance on how the parameters interconnect (e.g., what a 'board' looks like, how 'limit' behaves) and what the return structure implies. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but gaps remain.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by listing the accepted providers ('Greenhouse, Lever, or Ashby'), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Provider' string. However, it does not explain 'board', 'limit', or 'location_contains', although their names are somewhat self-explanatory. The coverage gap is only partially filled.

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 uses a specific verb 'Discover' and names the specific resource: 'listed jobs from a public Greenhouse, Lever, or Ashby API board.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that focus on applications (e.g., create_application, update_application_status) by focusing on job discovery. The scope is precise, including the public API nature and the supported platforms.

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: it discovers jobs from public API boards. It also gives explicit exclusions ('This does not log in, bypass restrictions, scrape LinkedIn, or auto-apply'), which helps set when-not-to-use boundaries. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state 'use this when...' but the context is strong enough to infer its intended use relative to siblings.

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