get_recruiting_opinion

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so safety is covered. The description adds value by listing the returned fields (value, markdown description, counts, parent review ref, timestamps), providing behavioral insight beyond 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 a single, dense sentence that conveys all essential information without extraneous words. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently covers identifier formats, disambiguation, and return fields.

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 and the existence of an output schema, the description adequately covers identification, disambiguation, and key return fields. It does not mention error handling, but that is a minor omission for a read-only tool.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates by explaining the opinion parameter accepts raw _id, OPE-<number>, or bare number, and the review parameter is for disambiguation. This adds meaning that the schema alone lacks.

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 it retrieves a single Recruiting opinion and specifies the acceptable identifier formats (raw _id, OPE-<number>, bare number). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_recruiting_opinions by focusing on a single entity.

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?

It advises passing the review parameter to disambiguate, which is a clear usage hint for when multiple opinions might match an ID. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or say when not to use it, but the context is sufficient.

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