recruiter_performance_report

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

No annotations exist, and description provides minimal behavioral context beyond stating it returns metrics. Does not disclose whether it's read-only, real-time, or any side effects, which is inadequate for a tool with no annotations.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Essential information front-loaded. Ideal for quick scanning.

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 2 optional params and an output schema, the description is adequate for a simple metrics report. However, it lacks context on how recruiters are identified or if the date range is inclusive, leaving minor gaps for nuanced use.

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 description must compensate. It only adds 'date_to' and 'date_from' implied from parameter names, but no format, required state, or behavior. Fails to add value beyond the schema itself.

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?

Description clearly states the tool returns per-recruiter metrics for candidates sourced, interviews, offers, closures. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like hiring_funnel_report (aggregate) or source_analysis (channel-based).

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?

Description implies usage for recruiter-level performance data, but does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives. No guidance on prerequisites or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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