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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description adds real behavioral context beyond the structured fields: default page size of 1000, the limit+page pagination model, and the fact that meta.total_count carries the total. It stops short of noting rate limits or ordering guarantees.

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?

Front-loads the core action and scoping, then packs filtering, includes, pagination and the underlying REST path into a few dense sentences. The field enumeration is slightly long, but every clause carries actionable 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden and does list the returned fields plus meta.total_count, so an agent knows the response shape. Multi-dimensional filters are all enumerated. It is complete enough for a 14-parameter list tool.

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%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by naming the default returned fields and clarifying what `include` unlocks (counters for candidate counts, description, salary, location_ids). This supplements the schema's own enum list with intent.

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 ('List the company's jobs') and resolves the domain naming ambiguity by clarifying that Recruitee calls jobs 'offers'. An agent can distinguish this list tool from the sibling recruitee_get_offer without opening either schema.

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 enumerates filtering dimensions ('Filter by status, department, location, recruiter, hiring manager, tag and more'), which implies when the tool is useful, but it never states when to prefer it over alternatives like recruitee_get_offer for a single job or the candidate-search siblings. Usage is implied rather than directed.

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