Star Company

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses that starring is free (no budget consumption), has a plan-based limit, and subscribes to job postings. These behavioral traits are not evident from annotations alone.

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 front-loaded with the main action and purpose, then provides important details. While it is somewhat long, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly more concise but is well-structured.

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 no output schema, the description explains the effect (appears in get_starred_jobs), constraints (only companies, tech stack overlap, plan limit), and references related tools. It is complete for the agent to understand when and how to invoke this tool.

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% with listingId documented. The description adds the constraint that only company-type listings can be starred, which adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema definition.

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 states the tool stars/saves a company listing, subscribes the user to job postings, and mentions that starred companies appear in get_starred_jobs. It distinguishes from siblings like unstar_listing and save_job by specifying only company-type listings can be starred.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use (star companies with tech stack overlap) and when-not-to-use (irrelevant stars pollute job feed). References alternatives like get_starred_jobs, get_star_count, and unstar_listing. Also mentions plan limits and calls get_star_count to check remaining slots.

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