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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds genuinely new context: idempotency ('Repeat calls are harmless') and cost ('Free'), plus what the 'start' step returns. It stops short of describing what 'progress'/'completed' return or any auth/permission requirements, so not a 5.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then the step semantics, then the idempotency and cost facts. Every sentence carries distinct information with no redundancy.

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?

With no output schema and only two simple parameters, the description supplies enough to drive the multi-step flow correctly, including what the first call yields. Minor gaps remain around what the later steps return and whether any prerequisites exist before starting.

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 carries the full burden, and it does explain the semantics of both parameters: the three step values and their role in the flow, and that 'note' is a short message supplied while working. It omits the 120-character note limit, which the schema does enforce, so it falls short of complete compensation.

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 and resource ('Run Hyreflow onboarding for the signed-in person') and clearly distinguishes itself from every sibling, none of which handle onboarding. An agent immediately knows this is a stateful onboarding flow rather than a data or skill tool.

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?

Explicitly maps each step to its use: 'start' is the default entry that returns instructions, 'progress' is called with a short note while working, and 'completed' is called at the end. The when-to-use sequence is fully specified with no inference required.

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