List the ranked application queue

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

With readOnlyHint=true, the description adds meaningful behavior beyond the annotation: jobs are gated-in, ordered by score, and deduplicated by fingerprint across boards. This extra context about filtering and de-duplication is valuable, though it does not cover auth or pagination.

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, tightly written, front-loaded with the core action ('Returns gated-in jobs ordered by score') and a valuable dedup clarification in the second sentence. Every word earns its place.

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 core behavior is clearly described, but the tool exposes 9 optional parameters and no output schema. The description does not explain how filtering parameters interact or what the returned data looks like, leaving gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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 only 22% (2 of 9 parameters have descriptions). The tool description does not explain parameters like limit, tiers, trackId, minScore, trackIds, companies, or locationClasses, leaving the agent to infer from names. The description adds no parameter-level meaning.

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 states the verb 'returns' and the specific resource 'gated-in jobs ordered by score', making it clear this lists the ranked application queue. It also distinguishes from siblings by explaining fingerprint-based exclusion of already-applied roles, preventing duplicate surfacing.

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 implies usage for viewing the prioritized queue of gated-in jobs and clarifies that applied roles are excluded, giving clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, falling short of a full when/when-not guide.

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