passgage_list_job_positions

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the read-only nature via 'List' and mentions filtering/pagination, but does not describe return structure or any potential side effects, auth, or edge cases. This is adequate but adds little beyond the name.

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 well-structured sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, mentions both key capabilities (filtering, pagination), and contains no fluff.

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 tool's simplicity and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete; however, with no output schema it does not specify the response format, though 'list' implies an array of job_positions. It is adequate for selection but could benefit from a note on default behavior.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'filtering and pagination' maps to the filters and page/per_page parameters, but it does not provide additional semantic detail beyond what the schema descriptions already offer.

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 a specific verb 'List' with the resource 'job_positions', clearly identifying it as the collection-retrieval counterpart to get_job_position among the sibling tools. 'Optional filtering and pagination' further clarifies its behavior, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_job_position.

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 fetching multiple job_positions with optional filters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_job_position or other list tools. No exclusions or alternatives are named, so guidance is minimal.

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