list_companies

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, what the response contains, how 'actively recruiting' is determined, or how results are organized despite 'categorized' suggesting some grouping. The description offers purpose but not meaningful behavioral 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 a single sentence with no filler and leads with the core discovery purpose. It is appropriately brief, though 'Discover' and 'categorized' are slightly imprecise for an API operation.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description leaves key operational details undocumented, such as the return format, pagination behavior, how open vacancy volume is represented, and whether the result is a flat list or grouped categories. The schema covers inputs, but the overall description is not complete enough for an agent to fully predict the tool's 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters and defaults. The description adds some framing by tying 'ATS provider' and 'open vacancy volume' to the tool's purpose, which aligns with ats_provider and min_active_jobs, but it does not add material meaning beyond the schema.

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 identifies the resource ('companies') and a specific discovery goal ('actively recruiting tech talent'), and differentiates the tool by naming ATS provider and open vacancy volume as the organizing dimensions. It is not as crisp as 'List companies...' but the intent is clear and separable from the job-oriented sibling tools.

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 this tool is for finding companies rather than jobs, which helps with sibling selection, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no comparison to alternatives like search_jobs or get_job_details. Usage is inferred rather than stated.

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