get_job_referrers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that it 'Returns people who might be able to refer you based on your network and the job,' which gives some context about the matching logic. However, it doesn't cover important aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if no referrers are found. 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 appropriately sized with two clear sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and return behavior. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from behavioral context, keeping it from a perfect score of 5.

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 moderate complexity (finding referrers based on network matching), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and the basic matching logic, but doesn't cover behavioral traits, error conditions, or output format. With no annotations or output schema, a more complete description would help the agent understand the tool's full context, resulting in a score of 3.

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 both parameters ('jobId' and 'limit') well-documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional semantic information about the parameters beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain what a 'jobId' refers to or provide context for the limit). According to the rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 at a company for a specific job.' It specifies both the action (find) and the resource (referrers for a job), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_application_referrers' by focusing on jobs rather than applications. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_job_recruiters' or other job-related tools, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

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 context ('based on your network and the job') but doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_application_referrers' or 'get_job_recruiters'. It provides some guidance by mentioning the network-based matching, but lacks clear exclusions or named alternatives, resulting in a score of 3 for implied usage.

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