List job ads

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the six possible status values, the fact that results carry per-stage applicant counts, and the cross-tool key (`post` short id) an agent needs to chain into other calls. It does not mention pagination or result limits, which matters for a list endpoint.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, then a compact status list, then the result shape. No filler, though the final item-shape sentence partly duplicates the existing output schema and is the least load-bearing line.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value explanation is optional reinforcement rather than a gap-filler. With safety covered by annotations and the only parameter fully enumerated, the remaining shortfall is workflow guidance — which sibling to use for applicant-level queries — for an agent operating among 18 related tools.

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 0% and the single `status` parameter has no enum in the schema, so the description carries the full burden — and it does, enumerating all six accepted values with `all` as the implied default. What it lacks is any hint about how filtering interacts with counts or what an unknown status does.

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 and resource ("List the company's job ads with applicant counts"), which is clearly distinct from the applicant-oriented siblings like list_applicants and get_applicant. It does not explicitly name an alternative, so the differentiation comes from the resource noun rather than an explicit contrast.

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?

Usage is implied by the status vocabulary, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus list_applicants or list_folder_applicants, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The note that `post` is the short id "used by the other tools" hints at workflow ordering but never spells it out.

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