im_get_open_jobs_db

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It is a read operation but does not mention permissions, rate limits, or data volume. The description 'all open' suggests no upper limit, which might be risky. More transparency like 'returns all matching results, may be large' would improve.

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?

Two sentences, both pertinent. No fluff. However, could be slightly expanded to include output format or limitations without sacrificing conciseness.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description covers the tool's purpose and use case but omits details like output structure, potential limits, and error handling. Fairly complete for a simple read tool but not fully.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds that the query returns headcount and age, which are not in the parameter schema but are output fields. This adds some value but does not explain parameter formats or interactions. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 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 it queries for all open job requisitions with headcount and age, distinguishing it from similar tools like im_get_job (single job) or im_search_jobs (filtered search). However, it does not explicitly name these alternatives.

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?

It says 'Useful for dashboards and bulk analysis,' indicating it is for aggregated data retrieval. It does not specify when to avoid this tool or mention alternative tools for single-record retrieval. The guideline is implied but not explicit.

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