check_postings

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

Annotations declare openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows this touches an external system and mutates recorded state. The description adds real context beyond that: it records closed/reopened postings, returns open/closed/reopened/unknown, warns that 'unknown' must be checked manually, and notes an open job may be offline with a redirect. These details are not present in the annotations and materially help interpretation.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and result, with the usage guidance placed last. It is dense and uses semicolons for clauses, which is slightly less scannable than ideal, but every sentence carries information 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?

With zero parameters, an output schema already present, and annotations covering the safety/network profile, the description supplies the remaining crucial context: what it does, which result values appear, and when to run it relative to list_queued_jobs. It is essentially complete for this tool's complexity, with only minor room to clarify the re-check behavior for 'unknown' results.

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 the description carries no parameter-semantics burden and the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing malformed or misleading about the parameter story.

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 names a specific action on a specific resource: checking whether postings of queued jobs and open applications still accept applications, and recording closed/reopened ones. It also implicitly separates itself from list_queued_jobs by defining the validation role rather than the listing role. The verb 'check' is slightly generic, so it stops 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?

It gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Run it before working through list_queued_jobs, so time isn't spent on closed postings,' which tells the agent when this tool belongs in a workflow and names the sibling it precedes. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use or a fully enumerated set of alternatives, so a 4 rather than 5.

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