List Qualifications

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

Annotations already indicate a safe read operation, and the description adds valuable context: pagination is performed by the MCP server because the underlying metadata endpoint returns all rows. This explains a non-obvious behavior, though it doesn't disclose other potential caveats.

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?

Two concise sentences front-load the purpose and include essential details without redundancy. Every word earns its place, and the structure is highly scannable.

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's simplicity, the presence of a full output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description adequately covers return values and behavioral context. No additional information is necessary.

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 descriptions already fully cover both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining why pagination exists and that it is MCP-side, which enhances understanding of the page/limit parameters beyond the schema.

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 tool lists Recruit CRM qualifications, specifies MCP-side pagination, and details the return fields (qualification_id, label) and their purpose for job qualification_id fields. This verb+resource+scope formulation distinguishes it from other list tools.

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 clear context by noting the results are used for job qualification_id fields, implying when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or 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.