hires_list_rejection_reasons

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. The description implies a read-only list operation, but lacks details on whether it returns all configured reasons or only active ones, potential pagination, or other behavioral nuances. It 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 short sentences, immediately front-loaded with the core action and resource. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the purpose and a key use case, making it fairly complete for a list operation. Minor gaps like return format or filtering behavior are offset by the simplicity of the tool and the schema's parameter description.

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 schema provides a full description of the only parameter (company_id) with 100% coverage, establishing a baseline of 3. The tool description adds no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline score holds.

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 'List configured rejection reasons for the company', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools like hires_list_sources and hires_list_statuses by explicitly naming the resource type. The added phrase 'Use to validate rejection actions and analytics' further clarifies its purpose.

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 phrase 'Use to validate rejection actions and analytics' provides explicit context for when this tool should be invoked, indicating its role in validating rejection actions. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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