hcm_search_requisitions

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

The description only restates the search behavior and adds no additional behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint annotation. There is no mention of pagination behavior, default limits, or how the finder parameter affects results, so it provides no deeper transparency than the annotations already provide.

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, front-loaded sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently communicates the core operation, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a tool with multiple parameters.

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 has four undocumented parameters fire, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is too minimal to be complete. It fails to explain query syntax, the purpose of 'finder', or any result shape, leaving significant gaps for an agent attempting to invoke it correctly.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and four parameters (q, limit, finder, offset), the description carries the burden of explaining parameter meanings, but it does not mention any of them. The agent is left without any semantic guidance for how to populate these fields.

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 verb 'Search' and the resource 'recruiting job requisitions', so an agent knows what entity this tool targets. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools like hcm_search_jobs or hcm_search_candidates beyond the resource name, 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?

The description offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as hcm_search_jobs or hcm_get_requisition. It also does not mention any prerequisites, filtering intent, or contexts where this search is preferred.

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