scan_ats_hiring_pain_signals

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the data sources and the categories of extracted signal, which is genuinely useful. However, it omits read-vs-write framing, rate limits and the free-tier cap (visible only in the schema), what a 'signal' record actually contains, and whether a Pro key changes behavior.

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 dense sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Every clause names a distinct output category, so nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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 six-parameter, all-optional scanning tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: it never defines what a returned signal looks like, whether results are across boards or per-company, or how the free-tier cap and Pro key affect results. It is minimally adequate but not complete for the complexity.

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 all six parameters are already documented in the input schema; baseline is 3. The description adds only loose context by tying the tool to Greenhouse/Lever boards, which maps to the atsProvider and board params but gives no guidance on how company, roleKeyword, and maxResults interact or what happens with zero required params.

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?

States a specific verb (Query) plus concrete resources (Greenhouse and Lever ATS boards) and names the three outputs it extracts: migration pain signals, disclosed USD salary budgets, and vendor opportunities. This is far more specific than the sibling tools, which target domains, SEC filings, and storefronts, so an agent can route correctly without opening the schema. It stops short of explicitly contrasting itself with any sibling, which keeps it at 4.

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 phrase 'immediate B2B vendor opportunities' implies a sales/prospecting use case, but the description never states when to call this versus a sibling or what preconditions exist (e.g. whether a company or board must be known first). Usage is inferable rather than prescribed.

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