Discover and rank jobs

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, openWorldHint true, destructiveHint false), the description clarifies the safety profile by explicitly stating 'Read-only against employers: no application is created or sent.' It also discloses that it 'stores the results,' which is a side effect not obvious from the annotations. This adds useful context about side effects and external dependencies.

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 a single, dense sentence that front-loads the core action. Every clause adds necessary information (scope, processing steps, side-effect disclosure) with no redundant 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?

The description covers the full workflow and explicitly notes that results are stored. However, because there is no output schema, the description does not say what the tool returns in the response (e.g., job listings vs. a status summary), relying on the mention of 'includeIssues' to hint at response content. This is a minor gap.

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 both parameters (companies, includeIssues) are already described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond naming them in the flow. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specific verbs ('fetches', 'normalizes', 'applies', 'scores', 'stores') with a clear resource ('every configured ATS board'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'scan_hiring_thread' by describing a batch discovery across all boards and a scoring pipeline.

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: to run the full discovery process across all configured boards. It also notes an optional company filter and includeIssues flag. However, it does not explicitly state when *not* to use it or mention alternatives like 'scan_hiring_thread'.

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