Kooperativa: recent job changes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and it does disclose important behavior: the returned set is people with recent new jobs, optionally filtered by prior company, and ordered most-recent-first. It does not discuss read-only status or output shape, but as a non-mutating list tool this is a reasonable disclosure.

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?

Three short sentences: use case, optional filter, and sort order. No filler; the most important semantic ('new role = new budget') is front-loaded.

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 simple optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, it covers the core invocation facts: target population, previous-company filter, and ordering. It could be stronger by mentioning that days controls the recency window and that results are paginated, but those are already represented in the schema.

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 coverage is 50%, so the description does not get the automatic baseline from high schema coverage. It adds clarity that company_id is an optional prior-company filter, but it largely repeats the schema's company_id description and does not elaborate on days, page, or per_page beyond what defaults convey.

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 identifies the output as people who recently started a new job, and the 'sorted most-recent-first' note pins down the resource and ordering. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like company_current_employees, company_past_employees, and search_people by its focus on individual job changes.

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?

It gives an explicit use case ('strong outreach signal... new budget, new vendor decisions'), which tells an agent when this signal matters. It does not name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of the full 5.

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