list_supported_ats

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 usefully states 'No network, no cost,' signaling that this is a safe, local, read-only introspection call. It does not fully enumerate all behavioral details, but for a zero-parameter list operation this is strong disclosure.

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?

A single sentence communicates the resource, the purpose, the relationship to a sibling tool, and the operational characteristics ('No network, no cost'). There is no redundancy or filler.

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 simple, zero-parameter introspection tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It tells the agent what the tool does, what it returns, how the result is used by search_jobs, and that it has no side effects. 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?

There are zero parameters, so parameter-semantics burden is minimal. The schema coverage is effectively 100%, and the description adds relevant context about what the returned provider slugs mean and how they relate to search_jobs.

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 identifies a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('applicant-tracking systems this server can read'), and the useful detail that it exposes the 'provider:slug' form expected by search_jobs. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_jobs and resolve_company.

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 clearly implies when to use this tool: before calling search_jobs, to learn which ATS providers are supported and what slug format to provide. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the context is clear and the sibling distinction is strong.

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