Request a demo call with Ruzora. A team member will reach out within 24 hours to discuss your hiring needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Full name | |
| Yes | Business email | ||
| 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 the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only indicates a human follow-up but does not clarify whether the tool creates a record, is destructive, or has side effects. The agent cannot assess safety or idempotency from this description.
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 extremely concise (two sentences, 21 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundancy or filler.
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, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It explains the purpose and follow-up but does not specify the tool's response (e.g., confirmation message) or address idempotency. It is adequate for a simple request tool but could be more 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. It mentions required fields but adds no format or usage guidance beyond what the schema already provides.
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 ('Request a demo call') and the resource ('Ruzora'), with a specific outcome ('team member will reach out within 24 hours'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like create_factory_inquiry or submit_candidate_application, which have different purposes.
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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer usage solely from the tool name and description, which is insufficient for a clear decision.
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.
