source_analysis

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states what the tool does (analyze sources, counts, join rates) without mentioning side effects, permissions, data freshness, or pagination. This is insufficient for a production tool.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 complexity (output schema exists, parameters optional), the description provides basic understanding but lacks detail on return values and parameter effects. It is adequate for a simple tool but could be more complete.

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 the description must explain parameter semantics. It does not mention the two parameters (date_from, date_to) or their role in filtering results. The phrase 'per-source counts and join rates' implies date-range filtering but does not clarify format, default behavior, or how null values are handled.

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's function: analyzing candidate sources with per-source counts and join rates. It mentions specific sources (LinkedIn, Naukri, Referral, Careers page), which adds specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'hiring_funnel_report' or 'recruiter_performance_report', which might also involve source analysis.

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 guidelines are provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no information about prerequisites, ideal use cases, or when not to use it. Sibling tools offer related functionality (e.g., hiring_funnel_report) but the description does not help the agent choose.

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