Get a ReLoop.me full read

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does substantial work: it enumerates statuses, explains non-charge on failed/held outcomes, mandates treating null as unknown, requires retaining reading_rules, and states the output describes a role, not a person. It omits auth/permission needs and any rate limits, but the behavioral disclosure is well above typical.

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?

Front-loads the operation and its key argument, then compresses status meanings and rules into tight clauses. Dense but every clause carries operational weight; only the stacked rules list feels slightly cramped.

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?

For a single-param read with no output schema, the description covers the meaningful return states and key output fields (reading_rules, role-vs-person framing). Auth requirements and error-shape handling are the remaining gaps, but an agent has enough to call and interpret this 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the pattern (^rr_[a-z0-9_]+$) plus the origin note ('returned by read_job_ad') are already in the schema. The description's 'by read_id' adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Fetches a ReLoop.me Role Intel full read by read_id'), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It implicitly sequences after read_job_ad (the read_id source) but never names the siblings quick_check_job_ad or read_job_ad to distinguish this from them.

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?

Gives clear context: read_id comes from read_job_ad, and statuses explain transient states with retry timing ('processing... try again in a minute or two') and billing outcomes. It also prescribes when NOT to use the result ('never use it to rank, screen, filter or reject candidates'), though it doesn't explicitly route to an alternative tool.

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