careers_dashboard

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

Annotations already establish a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile. The description adds a meaningful behavioral caveat: larger nested data may be truncated, which is not visible from the annotations or the empty input schema. This is useful disclosure beyond the structured metadata.

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 two sentences: the first front-loads the dashboard contents, and the second adds the truncation caveat and routing guidance. No words are wasted.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema present, and annotations covering safety, the description provides the remaining essential context: the dashboard contents and the truncation behavior. An agent has enough information to invoke it correctly and know when to switch to a dedicated tool.

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 input schema has no parameters, so there is no parameter semantic burden for the description to carry. The 0-parameter schema is fully documented, and the baseline for this case is 4.

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 identifies the tool as a career-portal dashboard covering announcements, calendar, recommended and recent opportunities. It lacks an explicit verb such as 'get' or 'list,' but the title and noun-phrase summary make the purpose clear. It only broadly distinguishes itself from 'dedicated paginated tools' rather than naming specific siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 implies this is the tool for a top-level overview of career portal content. It also states a clear when-not-to-use condition: if larger nested data is needed, use dedicated paginated tools. It does not name the specific sibling tools, but the sibling list makes them discoverable.

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