check_postings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the description is consistent, explaining that state changes to postings are recorded (the write behavior implied by readOnlyHint=false). It adds the useful caveat that 'result' may be 'unknown' and must be re-checked manually, though it says nothing about permissions, rate limits, or how many postings are checked.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and ending with the operational rationale for running it first. The first sentence is dense ('postings of queued jobs and open applications still take applications, and record the ones that closed or came back'), slightly re-read worthy but not padded.

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 no-parameter, idempotent write tool with an output schema present, the description covers purpose, timing, and the meaning of the result field. Since an output schema exists it needn't enumerate return values further, though a note on whether it only inspects tracked postings would make it airtight.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The mention of 'result' values is closer to output semantics than parameter semantics, but does not hurt.

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 states a specific verb (check) and resource (postings), scopes it to queued jobs and open applications, and notes the side effect of recording closed/reopened postings. It also distinguishes itself from list_queued_jobs by positioning itself as a prerequisite step, so an agent can route correctly without reading any schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to run it ('before working through list_queued_jobs') and why (so time isn't spent on closed postings), naming the sibling tool it relates to. There is a clear ordering constraint rather than implied usage.

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