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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that results are scoped to 'the company' and that entries carry ids usable elsewhere, but says nothing about pagination behavior or ordering beyond what the schema already spells out.

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 short sentences with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. The trailing raw endpoint ('GET /0/recruiters') is marginally useful for debugging but adds little for an agent.

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 simple two-parameter read-only list with no output schema, the description conveys scope, the entity returned (users with ids), and why those ids matter. A brief note on the returned shape would make it complete, but nothing needed to call it correctly is missing.

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% and both parameters (page, page_size) are fully documented there, including the next_page chaining hint. The description adds no parameter guidance, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 recruiters (users) of the company'), which no sibling tool duplicates — list_units, list_jobs, list_pools all target different resources. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with a sibling, but the resource noun alone is unambiguous.

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 second sentence explains downstream uses of the returned ids ('to read who owns a job or to credit a new candidate'), which implies when this lookup is needed, but it never states when to call this versus alternatives or any prerequisite. 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.