ingest_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It warns that ingested content is untrusted third-party data, forbids following embedded instructions or fetching embedded URLs, and discloses idempotent deduplication behavior.

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 front-loaded with purpose and moves logically through usage, security, and input requirements. Each section earns its place and there is 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?

For a one-parameter ingest tool with an output schema already present and no annotations, the description covers the action, use cases, security caveats, required and optional item fields, and deduplication. Nothing essential 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?

The schema is almost opaque (0% description coverage, arbitrary item objects). The description compensates by specifying required fields (url, title) and optional fields (company, location, posted_date, description), which is the only real parameter guidance available.

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 first line states a specific verb and resource: 'Add postings you found elsewhere.' It also explicitly distances the tool from 'portal search,' which clearly differentiates it from siblings like search_jobs and list_jobs.

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 gives clear when-to-use context: use when portal CLIs are unavailable or when another tool/agent provides a batch of listings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state exclusion cases, so it lacks the strongest routing guidance.

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