Get Recruiting Timeline

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and handles it well: it explicitly discloses that the dates are a curated template rather than live deadlines and instructs the agent to warn the user to confirm details. The 'projected onto the current cycle' phrasing also signals time-dependent output. This is genuine behavioral disclosure beyond what the schema provides.

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 with no filler: the core purpose is front-loaded, and the critical caveat follows immediately. Efficiently structured and appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core function and the essential caveat. It does not enumerate possible track values or output format, but the output schema handles the return side. Adequately complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 100%, so the single 'track' parameter is already fully described in the schema. The description mentions 'recruiting track' but adds no syntax, format, or valid-value detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate 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?

The first sentence states the tool returns 'key dates for a recruiting track, projected onto the current cycle' — a clear resource and operation (retrieve timeline dates). None of the 21 siblings overlap this function, so it is readily distinguished. The verb is implicit rather than explicit, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 caveat ('not live firm deadlines — tell the user to confirm against their career centre') tells the agent how the output should be treated, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this tool over alternatives or any exclusion conditions. No sibling is named as an alternative; usage is implied (for planning a recruiting timeline) rather than stated.

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