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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape ('contact info including email and LinkedIn') and the scope ('posted or associated'), which is useful. However, it does not mention permissions, rate limits, or potential limitations (e.g., missing contact info), so transparency is moderate.

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 core action and scope, followed by return value detail. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential return info (contact details). It could clarify what 'associated with' means or indicate multiple recruiters per job, but the plural 'recruiters' and job-scope wording make it reasonably complete.

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 100% with jobId described as 'The job ID to find recruiters for'. The description reinforces that the job ID is used to identify the job but adds no additional syntax, format, or usage detail beyond the schema, meriting the baseline score.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('recruiters') and scope ('who posted or are associated with a specific job'). This distinguishes it from related tools like get_application_recruiters and get_job_referrers, especially given the tool's name.

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 the tool is for job-level recruiters, contrasting with application-level or referrer tools, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives. Provides clear context without exclusions.

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