Scan GTM Hiring Signals

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint. The description adds that it consumes Apify credits per call and requires a token, which goes beyond annotations. No contradictions, but could mention idempotency explicitly.

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 concise with two sentences, no unnecessary words, and front-loads the core action. Every sentence adds value.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core functionality, read-only nature, authentication (APIFY_TOKEN), resource consumption (credits), and output format (flat Clay-ready JSON row). It is mostly complete but could mention that the output is a list of scraped job postings with fields.

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 parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, hence baseline score of 3.

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 verb 'scan', the resource 'company career pages', and the specific purpose 'detect GTM hiring activity'. It also lists the ATS platforms (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby) and output format, distinguishing it from sibling tools like aggregate_gtm_signals or detect_gtm_tech_stack.

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 mentions it is read-only and requires an APIFY_TOKEN, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aggregate_gtm_signals or when not to use it. The guidelines are implicit rather than explicit.

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