List Referral Contacts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety and mutability are fully covered without the description. The description adds the shape of returned data (company, careers URL, contact name, notes, applications_count), which is useful since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about scope, volume, or pagination.

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?

A single parenthetical sentence with zero filler; the resource is front-loaded and the returned fields are compactly listed. Every token 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?

For a zero-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, the description is nearly complete, and the field enumeration substitutes for the missing output schema. It could still state whether all referrals are returned or whether ordering/pagination applies.

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?

This tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no filtering input is accepted and instead documents the output fields, adding marginal value beyond the empty 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (referral contacts), and enumerates the returned fields, so an agent knows exactly what this retrieves. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_jobs and list_applications even without explicit sibling routing.

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 gives no indication of when to use this over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no filtering or scoping context. It is a bare statement of what the tool returns with no usage guidance at all.

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