hires_list_questions

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states 'paginated' which indicates a behavioral trait, but this is already evident from the page and size parameters in the schema. It does not disclose read-only nature, response format, or any other behavioral details. The description adds minimal value beyond the verb 'List'.

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 a single, short, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It includes the essential verb, resource, and a key qualifier ('paginated'). Perfectly concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 list tool with no output schema, the description provides the minimum viable context: it lists questions, supports pagination, and scopes to a company. However, it leaves ambiguity about what 'question catalog' includes (e.g., active vs. all questions, sorting, response fields). Given the many sibling list tools and no annotations, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but the current state is minimally adequate.

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%, with all three parameters (page, size, company_id) documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning to parameters, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema fully documents them. The phrase 'for the company' mildly reinforces the company_id parameter but does not add new semantic content.

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 uses a specific verb 'List' and clearly identifies the resource as 'question catalog for the company.' It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools by explicitly targeting questions, and from the related 'hires_list_question_types' by focusing on the catalog rather than types. Purpose is unmistakable.

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 implies usage: use this tool when you need to list paginated questions for a company. However, it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this over alternatives like 'hires_list_question_types' or other list tools. There are no exclusions or mention of alternative tools, leaving the usage context only implicitly stated.

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