get_application_referrers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the tool 'returns people at the company who might refer you,' which gives basic output context, but lacks details on behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences earn their place by stating the action and clarifying the return value. However, it could be slightly more structured by integrating usage hints.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose and output type, but lacks details on behavioral context, error handling, or when to use versus siblings. For a tool with 2 parameters and 100% schema coverage, it's adequate but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters (applicationId and limit). The description doesn't add any meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining what a 'potential referrer' entails or how the limit affects results. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 tool's purpose: 'Find potential referrers for a job application' specifies the action (find) and resource (referrers), and 'Returns people at the company who might refer you' elaborates on the output. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_application_recruiters' by focusing on referrers, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_job_referrers' which appears similar.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an application ID), compare to 'get_job_referrers' (a sibling tool), or specify contexts like post-application versus pre-application. Usage is implied by the name and parameters but not explicitly stated.

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