rt_list_offers

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly indicates a read/list operation that returns ids, status, and candidate counts, implying no side effects. It also subtly reveals that the response contains offer ids needed elsewhere, but it does not detail pagination or return envelope.

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 sentences, zero filler. The first sentence states purpose and outputs; the second provides navigational guidance. Everything earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple (two optional params, no output schema). The description sufficiently covers what it returns and why it should be used first. It lacks explicit return format details, but given the schema and the description's scope, it is nearly 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?

The input schema already describes both parameters (limit and query) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter-level nuance, so baseline 3 is appropriate; it does not compensate beyond 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 uses the specific verb 'List' and names the resource 'roles (offers) in Recruitee/Tellent' with the exact fields returned (ids, status, candidate counts). It also distinguishes itself as the starting point, making its role clear among 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?

'Start here — every other tool is keyed on an offer id' is explicit guidance on when to use this tool first and why: to obtain offer ids for the other tools. This effectively tells the agent to use this tool before any other tool that requires an offer id.

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