list_employer_addresses

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the HH_ACCESS_TOKEN requirement, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or whether it returns all addresses or a filtered set.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The core action comes first and the prerequisite follows.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description could say more about what is returned, but it does cover the essential auth prerequisite and the tool's scope. Adequate for a simple two-parameter listing tool, though thin on return expectations.

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 coverage is 100%, with both employer_id and the optional raw flag documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no format or semantic detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (addresses) scoped to an employer, which is clear and actionable. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_employer or get_employer_vacancy_areas, so it falls short of 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_employer for employer details). The only context given is an auth prerequisite, which is not usage guidance.

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