get_job_referrers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool returns people based on your network and the job, but does not mention important behavioral traits like whether it requires authentication, what happens when no referrers are found, or any limits on results. It also doesn't explicitly state it's a read-only operation, which is a significant gap given the absence of annotations.

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 consists of two concise, front-loaded sentences that immediately convey the tool's purpose and output. Every word earns its place with no unnecessary filler or repetition.

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 simple read-only tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but not fully complete. It explains what the tool does and generally what it returns, but doesn't describe the shape of the returned data or mention the limit parameter's behavior. The lack of an output schema makes the return structure disclosure more important, and the description 'people who might be able to refer you' leaves ambiguity about the exact fields.

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 description coverage is 100%, meaning both jobId and limit are already documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-specific details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies. It does implicitly reference jobId by saying 'for a specific job,' but adds no new semantic value for either parameter.

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 tool's purpose: finding potential referrers at a company for a specific job. It uses specific verbs ('Find,' 'Returns') and distinguishes the resource (referrers) from related sibling tools like get_job_recruiters and get_application_referrers, though it doesn't name these alternatives explicitly.

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 implies when to use the tool ('for a specific job' and 'based on your network'), but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use it or what alternatives exist. It lacks clear exclusions such as 'for recruiters use get_job_recruiters' or 'for an application use get_application_referrers'.

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