hires_list_hiring_team

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation via 'List' and specifies the scope as 'currently assigned,' but it does not discuss pagination, authentication, or response formats. This is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, and every word contributes value. The use case sentence is compact and earns its place.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description is sufficiently complete: it states what is listed (users), the scope (job's hiring team), and the intended use cases. It lacks pagination details, but the tool's simplicity and schema coverage make this acceptable.

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?

The input schema already documents the sole parameter 'id' with 100% coverage, including 'Job ID (numeric) or alias.' The description adds no extra parameter-level information, so the baseline score 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?

The description opens with a clear verb and resource: 'List users currently assigned to a job's hiring team.' This unambiguously states the tool's function and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_add_hiring_team_member, which adds members, and generic list tools.

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 useful context for when to use the tool with 'Useful for notification routing and collaboration tooling.' However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion scenarios, so it falls short of a full 5.

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