Search Hotlists

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

While annotations indicate read-only safety, the description adds valuable behavioral context: broad searches return compact summaries with only related_count, and name-filtered searches return related_slugs. It also discloses the owner-filtering limitation, which is not captured in annotations. No contradictions with the annotations exist.

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 four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: identification, requirement, limitation, and conditional behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids any redundant phrasing. Every sentence earns its place.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers essential usage conditions (required field, unsupported filtering) and return behavior (compact summaries vs. enriched results). The presence of an output schema offloads detailed return formatting, so the description is sufficiently complete for correct tool invocation.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral consequence of providing the 'name' parameter (inclusion of related_slugs) and characterizing 'shared' as a filter. This additional context earns a 4.

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 action ('Search Recruit CRM hotlists') and the primary filtering dimension ('by related_to_type and optional name/shared filters'). It distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by focusing specifically on hotlists and explicitly noting it does not support owner filtering, which is a differentiator.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'related_to_type is required' sets the precondition, and 'When name is provided, results also include related_slugs for follow-up workflows' indicates a specific use case. The exclusion 'Does not support owner filtering' clearly tells the agent when not to use this tool for owner-based queries.

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