careers_recommendations

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful distinction that these are recommendations rather than filtered search results, but it does not describe behavior like pagination or stability. This is acceptable given the annotations carry the behavioral burden.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core action and adds a crucial scoping distinction. Every word earns its place, with no filler or repetition.

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 read-only tool with one optional parameter, the description plus annotations and output schema provide enough context for correct invocation. It could have provided slightly more detail about what the recommendations represent, but the openWorldHint and the search-versus-recommendations distinction cover the essentials.

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 only parameter, limit, is fully described in the schema with title, default, minimum, and maximum, so an agent already knows how to use it. The description does not add parameter-specific meaning, but with schema coverage essentially complete for the single optional parameter, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it reads the career portal's recommendations, using the specific verb 'Read' and the resource 'recommendations'. It also distinguishes this from filtered search results, which helps an agent understand the unique purpose among siblings like careers_jobs and careers_searches.

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 useful context by explicitly stating this is not the same as filtered search results, telling the agent when not to use it. It does not name an alternative tool by name, but the contrast with search results is a clear usage signal given the sibling list includes careers_searches and careers_jobs.

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