Submit a hiring inquiry to Ruzora. Use when a company wants to hire senior LATAM engineers for their team.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name of the hiring manager | |
| Yes | Business email address | ||
| phone | No | Phone number | |
| company_name | Yes | Company name | |
| company_domain | No | Company website domain |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It identifies the tool as a form submission for hiring inquiries but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as data handling, confirmation process, rate limits, or whether it triggers follow-up actions. This is insufficient for a tool that collects personal information.
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 brief and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence has a purpose, and there is no extraneous information. It could be slightly improved by adding specific guidance, but it is appropriately concise for a simple tool.
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 has 5 parameters, 3 required, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after submission, how data is used, or any constraints (e.g., format expectations for 'phone'). Completion is especially lacking for behavioral and post-submission context.
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 baseline is 3. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it simply restates the purpose. No examples or context for parameters like 'phone' or 'company_domain' are provided, but the schema already explains these clearly.
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 action ('Submit a hiring inquiry') and the target ('Ruzora') and specifies the use case ('hire senior LATAM engineers'). It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on hiring as an employer, not applying as a candidate or requesting a demo.
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 a clear when-to-use condition ('when a company wants to hire senior LATAM engineers'), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for related tasks such as 'submit_candidate_application' or 'request_demo', which are among the siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool addresses a distinct purpose: factory inquiries, hiring leads, company information, job details, open roles, demos, and candidate applications. There is no ambiguity in their target actions or stakeholders (client vs. candidate).
Tool names consistently follow a verb_noun pattern using snake_case, such as create_factory_inquiry or list_open_roles. The minor inconsistency is that get_job_details and get_company_info use 'get' while others use 'create', 'list', or 'request', but the pattern is still predictable and clear.
With 7 tools, the count is well-scoped for a recruitment and software services server. Each tool covers a necessary interaction (inquiries, applications, demos, info, role listing) without unnecessary bloat or deficiency.
The tool set covers the main lifecycle: company info, role discovery, applying/inquiring, and demo requests. A minor gap is the lack of update or delete operations for inquiries or applications, but for this domain those are typically handled out-of-band, so the surface is reasonably complete.
