report_expired_job

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a meaningful behavior—triggering immediate HTTP prober verification—which helps the agent anticipate a side effect. However, it omits other behavioral context such as authentication needs, idempotency, or what happens after verification.

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 with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the behavioral note about the HTTP prober is placed immediately after, making it easy to scan.

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?

For a simple 3-parameter report action with a complete schema and no output schema, the description covers the key context: what is being reported and the immediate consequence. It is slightly incomplete because it does not mention usage boundaries or post-call expectations, but the overall package is adequate for correct invocation.

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%, and each parameter already has a meaningful description, including the reason enum and the job_id_or_slug format. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Report'), the target ('dead link or expired job posting'), and a distinctive side effect ('Triggers immediate HTTP prober verification'). It is easily distinguishable from sibling tools like search_jobs or get_job_details, which are read-only searches.

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 when to use the tool: when a job link is dead or a posting is expired. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, leaving the agent to infer the boundary from sibling names.

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