extract_job_contacts

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Extract' implies a non-mutating, side-effect-free operation, but the description says nothing about whether it hits the network, requires authentication, rate limits, or what it returns when no contacts are found — all material for a tool whose output drives outreach.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and outputs. The second sentence partially restates the recruiter-email output already listed in the first, so it is slightly redundant rather than strictly additive, but nothing is padded.

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 one-parameter, high-coverage tool with no output schema, enumerating the three returned artifact types compensates well for the missing return definition. The remaining gaps — empty-result behavior and invocation prerequisites — are minor for a straightforward extraction utility.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage ('Full job description text or posting content'), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description's phrase 'raw job descriptions' corroborates but adds no syntax, size, or format detail beyond it, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb (extract) with a precise resource (raw job descriptions) and enumerates the exact outputs (recruiter emails, career application URLs, contact names). No sibling tool in the set does extraction, so the purpose is unambiguous without needing explicit differentiation.

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?

'Used to find recruiter emails for follow-up outreach via Gmail' gives the downstream intent, which implies when to reach for it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites (e.g., must be called before an apply or outreach step), and no named alternatives.

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