list_recruiting_activity

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 repeats 'read-only' but adds no additional behavioral context such as pagination, rate limits, or any effects beyond what annotations provide.

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. The first sentence clearly states the action and scope. The second sentence clarifies an important exclusion. No unnecessary information.

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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering safety, the description is fairly complete. It explains supported targets and the exclusion of opinions. However, it does not mention ordering, filtering options, or any edge cases, which would make it more complete.

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 description coverage is 100%. The description adds value by stating 'resolved by friendly Recruiting identifiers', indicating human-readable inputs. However, the schema already describes the target and limit in detail, so the description provides slight additional context.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'activity messages', and the scope 'Recruiting vacancy, candidate, applicant, or review target'. It also explicitly mentions that 'opinions are intentionally unsupported', distinguishing it from sibling 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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'add_activity_reply' or 'list_activity_replies'. It hints at exclusion of opinions but lacks clear guidance on when it is appropriate to use.

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