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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that it returns people, without mentioning that the limit is capped at 2, whether the operation is read-only, or any edge cases like no referrers found. This lack of behavioral detail is a notable gap for a tool with no safety annotations.

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 with no fluff. It front-loads the action ('Find') and provides a quick summary of the return value. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core function and return type. However, it omits the fixed limit behavior and does not hint at the response format beyond 'people', which would be helpful given no output schema is present.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it mentions the application relationship but doesn't explain the limit parameter's odd constraint (default 2, max 2) or how limiting works.

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 the tool finds potential referrers for a job application, with a specific verb ('find') and resource ('referrers for a job application'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_job_referrers by explicitly scoping to 'a job application' rather than a job posting, and from get_application_recruiters by focusing on referrers instead of recruiters.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: when you have a job application and want potential referrers. It implies the need for an applicationId. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, such as using get_job_referrers for job-level referrers.

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