source_effectiveness

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 explicitly declares 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral safety disclosure, and explains behavior around job_id filtering and returning metrics. It does not cover pagination or permission details, but is transparent about its main safety profile and output.

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?

Three short sentences front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage triggers and parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler or redundancy.

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?

With an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, but it still does. It covers what the tool does, when to use it, and how to parameterize it. Low parameter count and simple nullable inputs mean the context is complete.

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, so the baseline is 3. The description adds context for job_id (omit for org-wide analysis, list_jobs→match by name) beyond the schema, but does not mention created_after, which the schema already describes as ISO 8601. Overall, the description adds modest value on top of 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?

The description clearly states the tool analyzes candidate sources by effectiveness, with explicit output metrics (volume, active rate, hire rate per source). This distinguishes it from sibling analytics tools like pipeline_metrics or time_to_hire, which focus on other aspects of the recruitment pipeline.

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 explicit trigger phrases ('which sources are working?', 'where should we spend recruiting budget?') and explains when to pass job_id vs omit for org-wide analysis. However, it does not name alternatives or provide exclusion criteria, so it falls short of a 5.

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