ojp_validate_job_posting

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions that the tool returns 'validity status and a list of errors' but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only or any side effects (though validation is presumably safe). More detail on output format would improve transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loading the action, then listing input options, then output. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects beyond the document object), the description covers the tool's purpose, inputs, and output sufficiently. However, since there is no output schema, more detail on the structure of the validity status and error list would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 100% and descriptions already detail filePath as absolute path and document as pre-parsed object. The tool description adds value by clearly stating the two alternatives ('provide either filePath or document') and summarizing their roles, reinforcing the schema information effectively.

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 validates a JSON document against the Open Job Protocol schema v0.1. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like otp_validate_profile (profile validation) and ojp_parse_job_posting (parsing vs validation) by specifying the protocol and the operation (validate vs parse or profile).

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 two input options (filePath or document) but does not offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like otp_validate_profile for profiles or ojp_parse_job_posting for parsing. No explicit exclusions or when-not-to-use context is given.

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