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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does reasonably well: it names the returned contact fields (email, LinkedIn), documents the not-found failure mode, and advises retrying after a minute for transient lookup failures. It stops short of stating permission/auth requirements or explicitly confirming the operation is a read-only lookup.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return contents and failure behavior; nothing is redundant. The phrase 'matched to the role's function' is slightly vague but still earns its place as scoping information.

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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers return contents, error behavior, and retry semantics, which is what an agent needs to call it and interpret results. Minor gaps (auth context, whether multiple recruiters can be returned) keep it from a 5.

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 a single required 'jobId' already documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the notion of matching the recruiter to the role's function, which hints at selection logic but not at anything jobId-specific beyond what the schema says.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the recruiter for a specific job') plus the scoping detail that the recruiter is matched to the role's function. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the application-scoped siblings (get_application_recruiters) by saying 'for a specific job', but never names those alternatives explicitly.

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?

Provides useful operational guidance about failure and retry, but gives no explicit when-to-use comparison against close siblings like get_application_recruiters, get_job_referrers, or get_application. The agent must infer that this tool is for job-level recruiter lookup rather than application-level.

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