hiring_funnel_report

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

No annotations are present, and the description does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, requires permissions, or has any side effects. The behavioral characteristics are left entirely implicit.

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 concise with two sentences, front-loading the core purpose. However, it omits important details, but the brevity is appropriate given the tool's straightforward nature.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not reference the return structure. With 5 parameters and multiple sibling report tools, the description lacks sufficient context to fully understand the tool's scope and relationship to others.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description should compensate by explaining each parameter's role. It only specifies the date format (YYYY-MM-DD) but does not clarify what role, recruiter, department, or the date range parameters do as filters.

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 the tool generates a hiring funnel including specific stages (applicants, screening, interview, offers, joiners, rejections) and conversion percentages, which distinguishes it from siblings like recruiter_performance_report or get_job_pipeline.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as recruiter_performance_report or get_job_pipeline. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or context for its use.

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