analyze_recruitments

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the snapshot vs. live collection behavior and the associated API calls. It also clarifies that the tool returns aggregated counts and sums. While it does not cover rate limits or auth, the description provides reasonable transparency for a non-destructive tool.

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 relatively concise and uses line breaks to separate sections (purpose, dimensions, output, snapshot behavior, filtering). It front-loads the core functionality. However, it could be slightly more structured or formatted for easier scanning.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return values (counts and sums). It covers the key parameter effects and the snapshot mechanism. However, it does not mention error conditions, pagination behavior for top_n, or what happens if no data exists. Still, it provides sufficient context for basic use.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description adds significant meaning by listing the dimension values and explaining the use_snapshot parameter's effect. It also mentions the filtering parameters (region, ncs, hire_type, pref) and the top_n parameter implicitly. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 aggregates distributions of ongoing recruitment postings, lists the dimensions (region, ncs, hire_type, etc.), and specifies that it returns 'number of postings' and 'sum of recruitment numbers' per dimension. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like search_recruitments, which focuses on individual postings.

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 indicates it is 'for research/policy use' and explains the behavior of use_snapshot (default true) and the ability to narrow the population with filters. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or provide direct comparisons with alternatives, though the purpose is clear enough.

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