List Languages And Proficiencies

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=true annotation, the description discloses that pagination is 'MCP-side' and that the tool returns standard proficiency IDs. This adds behavioral context about how the tool operates (server-side pagination) and what it returns, which is not captured by the 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 is two sentences long and front-loaded with the core action. The first sentence states what it does, and the second provides a direct usage hint. Every word contributes value; there is no fluff 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 list tool with two optional params, an output schema, and clear annotations, the description is complete. It explains the purpose, the pagination behavior, and the intended downstream use (language_skills). The output schema covers return structure, so no further detail is needed.

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 provides 100% coverage for both parameters (page and limit) with detailed descriptions, including the rationale for server-side pagination. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, so 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 the specific verb 'Lists' with the resource 'Recruit CRM languages' and clarifies that it also returns 'standard proficiency IDs'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling list tools (e.g., list_currencies, list_qualifications) by focusing on language-related metadata.

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 an explicit usage context: 'Use language_id and proficiency_id for candidate language_skills.' This tells the agent when to use the tool. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, and there are no directly competing sibling tools, so it doesn't need exclusions.

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