Hire Me

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Includes expertise, experience, and next steps' which hints at output content, but lacks details on behavioral traits like response format, data sensitivity, rate limits, or authentication needs. For a tool with personal hiring information and optional contact details, this gap is significant.

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 appropriately sized with two sentences that efficiently convey purpose and scope. It's front-loaded with the main action and includes relevant details without redundancy. Every sentence adds value, though minor improvements in structure could enhance clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is moderately complete but has gaps. It covers the tool's purpose and hints at output content, but lacks details on behavioral aspects and return values. For a tool with personal data and multiple parameters, more context on usage and results would improve completeness.

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%, providing baseline documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples or edge cases). With high schema coverage, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't need to heavily.

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's purpose: 'Get information about hiring Duyet for various roles' with specific role types listed. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_analytics' or 'send_message' by focusing on hiring information, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with them. The verb 'Get information' is specific and the resource 'hiring Duyet' is well-defined.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for hiring-related queries but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to other tools like 'say_hi' or 'send_message' that might handle communication. Without explicit when/when-not instructions, users must infer context.

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