contribute

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries most of the load and does so well: it explains duplicate handling (existing posting returns its slug), page-readability fallback (imported into catalogue), and uncrawled boards (queued for onboarding). It omits auth requirements and rate limits, which are the remaining behavioral gaps for a write-intake 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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by outcomes, the status enumeration, and the follow-up sibling. Every sentence adds distinct information with no repetition of the schema or annotations.

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, so the description must explain returns, and it does: it enumerates the possible status values (found, tracked, imported, review, queued) and states that an existing posting yields a slug. For a one-parameter intake tool this is complete enough to call correctly and interpret the result.

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 100% for the single url parameter, so the baseline is already met. The description adds real meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the URL may be either an individual job posting or a whole company career board, which changes what the agent should supply.

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 (hand over/contribute a link) and the exact resources accepted: a vacancy posting or an ATS company career board. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling my_contributions, which is named as the way to check previously sent links.

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?

Makes clear this is the same intake used by the website and CLI, so the agent knows it is the canonical submission path, and it names my_contributions as the follow-up tool. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g. do not re-send links already tracked), but the context is clear.

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