cfbd_recruiting

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds valuable context: the response shape is unverified/approximate and the tool requires a CFBD_API_KEY. This discloses reliability and auth needs that annotations do not cover, though it doesn't discuss pagination or result limits.

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 well-structured with clear sections: purpose, return shape, unverified caveat, example, and auth. Each section serves a purpose, even though the return field list makes it longer than necessary. The first sentence immediately states the core purpose, so it is effectively front-loaded.

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 no output schema, the description compensates by listing the return fields and adding a reliability caveat. The example and auth note round out the picture. However, it doesn't clarify behavior when no filters are provided (e.g., returns all recruiting classes), which is a minor gap for a tool with all optional parameters.

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 already covers all four parameters with clear descriptions (e.g., 'Committed school.', 'Recruiting class year.'). The description only adds an example call, which is illustrative but doesn't deepen parameter understanding beyond schema descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% 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 identifies the resource ('Recruiting classes') and the specific data returned (individual commits with stars, ratings, positions). This distinguishes it from sibling CFBD tools like cfbd_games, cfbd_rankings, and cfbd_teams, which cover different data domains.

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 a usage example ({"year": 2024}) and notes auth requirements, which gives context for when to call. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions, so it falls short of full selection guidance.

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