Get Job-Site Login

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

With annotations already covering safety hints, the description adds substantial non-obvious context: every call is recorded (but never the value), the value is exposed to the agent's AI provider, and the user's password is deliberately scoped to job sites. It also pre-empts the odd readOnlyHint=false by explaining the audit side effect, so there is no contradiction. It stops short of describing failure behavior when the preconditions are unmet.

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 what the tool returns, followed by availability constraints, audit/privacy notes, and the return shape. Three dense sentences, all earning their place; the AI-provider sentence is slightly circuitous but adds meaningful warning value.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by specifying the return shape {email, password}, plus availability gates and a privacy warning. Complete for invocation; only a note on what happens when the tool is unavailable or the proposal is unapproved is missing.

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% for the single proposal_id parameter, so the description carries the burden. It only implies the parameter via 'this proposal's application site' and 'a queued or approved proposal', which conveys the concept but not the id format or source (e.g., from list_proposals). Baseline 3 for a one-param tool with a partial hint.

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 precise verb+resource: it retrieves the user's saved email and password for job-site accounts tied to a proposal's application site, and names the intended use (creating an account or signing in). No sibling tool does credential retrieval, so it is unambiguously distinct from get_proposal, get_application, and the kb_* family.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions that act as when/when-not guidance: available only while full automation is on, and only for a queued or approved proposal. The purpose statement also names the concrete situation in which the agent should reach for it (signing in or creating an account on the application site).

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