query_postings

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

The description reveals a key behavior: the tool only returns postings with at least one score, and that an empty result is valid. However, since there are no annotations, the description should also disclose aspects like idempotency, side effects, or required permissions, but it does not. The disclosed behaviors are useful but incomplete.

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 extremely concise: two sentences with no redundant words. It states the core action, a critical behavioral detail, and a note about empty results. Every sentence adds value, achieving high efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema (reducing the need to describe return values), the description still leaves gaps. It does not elaborate on the filter criteria parameters, nor does it explain the output beyond 'latest score'. The tool has 4 parameters, all undocumented in schema descriptions; the description fails to compensate adequately. The behavioral note is good but insufficient for a complete understanding.

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%, meaning the input schema lacks any explanatory text for parameters. The description only mentions 'filter criteria' generically, without explaining how each parameter (limit, min_score, date_after, role_anchor) works. The parameter names offer some clues, but for an AI agent, more explicit guidance is needed to ensure correct invocation.

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 lists postings with filter criteria and includes the latest score. The verb 'List' and resource 'postings' are specific. Although it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings, the sibling tools (rescore_posting, tag_mismatched_score, regenerate_digest) are obviously different in function, so no confusion.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description mentions a behavioral constraint (only postings with at least one score) but doesn't explain under what circumstances an agent should choose this over other list or search tools. Absence of usage context or exclusions limits its helpfulness.

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