get_placements

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is a 'Get' operation (read-only) and returns a JSON string with data, but does not disclose additional traits like pagination limits beyond defaults, or potential performance considerations. This is sufficient for a simple read operation but lacks depth.

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 extremely concise: a single title line and a brief Args/Returns section. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details parameters and return type efficiently.

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 the tool has 3 optional parameters, a list output, and an output schema exists, the description covers the essential aspects: what the tool does, what it returns (with examples like hire dates and salaries), and how parameters work. It is missing explicit mention of ordering or default behavior for missing parameters, but it is complete enough for a basic listing tool.

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 0%, so the description must add meaning beyond the schema. It explains each parameter: 'limit' as maximum number, 'offset' for pagination skip, and 'status' for filtering. This adds clarity that the schema (with only titles and defaults) does not fully provide, earning a 4.

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 'Get placement records (successful hires),' which specifies the verb ('Get'), the resource ('placement records'), and the scope ('successful hires'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'get_placement_info' (singular) or other list tools, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_placement_info' for a single record. It implies use for listing placements but offers no exclusion criteria or context-based guidance, which is adequate but not exceptional.

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