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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool uses the buyer's saved connection details for authentication, and includes confirm and dry_run parameters to control execution. However, it does not mention rate limits, error handling, or response format, leaving some gaps.

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 a single short sentence that conveys the core purpose. While it is concise, it could be more structured (e.g., separate bullet points for key behaviors). Still, it is free of fluff and front-loaded.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, generic API client), the description adequately covers the necessary context: authentication via saved connection, safety mechanisms (confirm, dry_run), and the scope of endpoints. It does not explain return values (no output schema), but that is acceptable per instructions.

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 high (86%), but the description adds value by explaining that confirm is ignored for GET and dry_run, and that body_json/query_json/headers_json are for documented endpoints. This context goes beyond the parameter types and descriptions in the schema.

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 clearly states it can be used to call any documented Recruitee Ops Control Plane endpoint, which is a specific verb-resource combination. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools that cover individual CRUD operations, making the tool's generic purpose unambiguous.

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 tool is for endpoints without dedicated tools, but it does not explicitly say when to use it versus siblings or when not to use it. No exclusion criteria or alternative recommendations are provided, relying on the agent to infer from the sibling list.

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