get_application_recruiters

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions the return type ('contact info for reaching out'), which adds some behavioral context, but fails to disclose critical traits like whether this is a read-only operation, requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens if the application ID is invalid. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose and adds a brief note on return values. There is no wasted text, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally complete. It states the purpose and return type, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, it should do more to compensate, but it meets a basic threshold for a simple read operation.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'applicationId' documented as 'The job application ID'. The description does not add any meaning beyond this, such as format examples or sourcing details. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 the action ('Get recruiters') and resource ('for a job application you have saved'), specifying it returns contact info. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_application' or 'get_job_recruiters' by focusing on recruiters tied to a saved application, but could be more explicit about differentiation from 'get_ob_recruiters'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_job_recruiters' or 'get_application_referrers' is provided. The description implies usage for saved applications but lacks explicit context or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer based on sibling tool names.

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