get_recruiting_review

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true. The description adds that it returns specific fields like schedule, markdown description, verdict, etc., and that it can use different identifiers. No contradictory information; the description enriches the behavioral context.

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 efficient sentences: first states the identification methods, second lists returned fields. No unnecessary words. Front-loaded with core purpose.

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 retrieval tool, the description covers all essential aspects: how to identify the review, optional disambiguation, and what data is returned. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to detail return values, but the description still gives a good summary.

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 low (33%), but the description explains that the review parameter can be raw _id, RVE-<number>, bare number, or exact title, and that candidate/application are optional for disambiguation. This adds meaning beyond the plain string type in 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 retrieves a single recruiting review using various identifiers (raw _id, RVE-<number>, bare number, or exact title) and specifies optional disambiguation. It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_recruiting_reviews (lists multiple) and create_recruiting_review (creates).

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 mentions optional candidate/application disambiguation, implying when to use these parameters. It provides clear context for retrieving a single review, but no explicit when-not or alternatives are stated. The sibling list provides implicit differentiation.

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