get_application_recruiters

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It indicates this is a read operation ('Get... Returns contact info') and mentions the output's purpose, but it does not specify the structure of the returned data, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or potential errors. This is adequate for a simple getter but not fully transparent.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by a clarifying statement about the output. There is no redundant or extraneous content, making it an efficiently structured description.

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?

The tool is very simple (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), and the description conveys the core purpose and output type ('contact info for reaching out'). While it does not list exact fields in the return payload, the phrase 'contact info' is sufficiently indicative for most use cases. Given the low complexity, the description is reasonably complete, though explicit return fields would have made it a 5.

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% coverage—the only parameter, applicationId, is described as 'The job application ID.' The tool description adds the context that it applies to a 'saved' application, which slightly clarifies the parameter's meaning, but overall it adds little beyond the schema. Therefore, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recruiters for a job application'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_job_recruiters (which targets jobs, not saved applications) and get_application_referrers (which returns referrers, not recruiters). It also states the purpose of the returned data ('for reaching out'), making the tool's function unambiguous.

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 phrase 'for a job application you have saved' establishes the context of when to use this tool: when you need recruiters associated with an already-saved application. It implicitly distinguishes from get_job_recruiters, but it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, 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.