Apply to Ruzora's talent network. For software engineers in LATAM interested in remote positions with US startups paying USD salaries.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| Yes | Email address | ||
| phone | No | Phone number | |
| message | No | Brief intro or relevant experience | |
| last_name | Yes | Last name | |
| first_name | Yes | First name | |
| linkedin_url | No | LinkedIn profile URL | |
| role_category | Yes | Primary role category |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must fully reveal behavioral traits. It states the tool's purpose (application submission) but does not disclose any side effects, such as whether a confirmation is sent, if data is persisted, or if there are rate limits or authorization requirements. The description is clear about what it does but lacks depth on consequences.
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 composed of two concise sentences. The first sentence states the core action, and the second provides crucial context about the target audience and job type, all without unnecessary words. Every sentence is meaningful.
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's complexity (7 parameters, 4 required, 1 enum) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the who, what, and why. It could be enhanced by mentioning what happens after submission (e.g., confirmation email, expected response time), but overall it provides sufficient context for an agent to understand the tool's purpose and target audience.
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 any additional meaning beyond what the schema's parameter descriptions already provide. It does not explain the enum values, provide examples, or clarify how parameters relate to the application process.
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 verb 'Apply' and the resource 'Ruzora's talent network', and further specifies the target audience ('software engineers in LATAM') and context ('remote positions with US startups paying USD salaries'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_factory_inquiry' or 'create_hiring_lead'.
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 explicitly tells when to use this tool: for applying to the talent network, and crucially, it specifies the target audience (software engineers in LATAM) and ideal job context (remote, US startups, USD salaries). This implicitly excludes candidates outside this scope, guiding the agent not to use this tool for other purposes.
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.
