publish_job

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden; it does disclose an auth/role requirement and the negotiable-salary default behavior, which is genuinely useful. But it omits whether the job goes live immediately, moderation/reversibility, or error behavior for a mutation tool.

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 compact paragraph that front-loads the core action and role requirement, then layers supporting details. Every clause carries information with no filler.

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?

Output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers auth, currency, and negotiable-salary behavior. For an 8-parameter, 0%-coverage mutation tool it still leaves title, raw_text, and salary_unit semantics undocumented.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it supplies enum values for salary_currency (data the schema lacks), explains the required/preferred structured conditions, and the dual salary_field negotiable rule. It leaves title, raw_text, and salary_unit (default 'monthly') unexplained, so coverage is partial but adds real value beyond the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (publish) and resource (job posting) and adds the required role, so an agent knows this creates a live job listing. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like close_job or match_job_requirement, but the create-action is unambiguous.

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?

States a concrete prerequisite ('requires employer role') and the negotiable-salary case ('don't pass both salary fields'), which is useful routing context. However, it never tells the agent when to pick this over siblings such as close_job or create_company, so usage remains implied.

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