get_job_recruiters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the return content but does not specify whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, any rate limits, or error conditions. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic function.

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 key details. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function without redundancy or unnecessary elaboration.

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 adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose and return values, but lacks details on usage context, behavioral traits, or error handling that would be helpful for an AI agent.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the 'jobId' parameter clearly documented. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides, such as format or sourcing of the job ID, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('associated with a specific job'), and specifies the return content ('contact info including email and LinkedIn'). It distinguishes from some siblings like 'get_job' or 'get_application_recruiters' by focusing on job-specific recruiters, though not explicitly contrasting with all similar 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_application_recruiters' or 'get_job_referrers'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid job ID from another operation, or exclusions for when not to use it.

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