Search postings at named companies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint='false', so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context about client-side filtering, the reporting of undeclared field counts, and the absence of descriptions in rows, which is valuable beyond annotations.

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 three sentences and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence conveys essential information: the action, the constraint (companies required), and a behavioral note about filtering and output, plus a pointer to get_job. No wasted words.

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 the tool has 18 parameters and an output schema, the description doesn't need to explain every parameter or return value. It covers the critical context: company requirement, client-side filtering, undeclared counts, and no descriptions in rows. With an output schema present and rich annotations, this is sufficient, though it omits details about pagination that the schema does provide.

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?

The schema has 67% description coverage with detailed parameter descriptions, so the description doesn't need to add much. The description does mention that companies are required, but that's already in the schema. It provides no additional parameter-level semantics, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 searches open postings at named companies on Ashby, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job (read one posting) and list_filter_values by indicating its scope and the requirement to specify companies.

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 description explains that companies are required, which is a key usage constraint, and explicitly points to get_job for reading full descriptions. It also notes that filters run client-side, implying this tool is used for cross-company searches rather than source-level filtering. However, it doesn't contrast with all siblings (e.g., list_filter_values) explicitly.

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