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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real context beyond them: 'Public' signals no auth required, and it discloses ordering behavior (cheapest first, House Rokha last on a tie) and the provenance meaning of qual_runs (their traces are the proof).

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?

Front-loads the purpose and result shape, then the follow-up action, using dense parenthetical shorthand rather than filler. Slightly heavy in the field enumeration, but every clause carries information an agent needs.

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, the description compensates fully by enumerating the returned entry fields (agent subfields, specialty_id, price_cents, proven_at, hires_done, hires_failed, qual_runs), the sort order, the auth status, and the next step. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents listing, provider, and external_id. The description only adds the mapping 'provider/external_id' via the API-path analogy, which is marginal rather than substantive parameter guidance.

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+resource: who can be HIRED for one Market capability, with the exact qualification criterion (three graded qualification runs) and price. Clearly distinguishes itself from the follow-up sibling hire_create, which it explicitly names as the next step.

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?

Gives clear workflow context by naming the next tool (hire_create) and the value to carry over (specialty_id). It does not mention alternative discovery tools (e.g. market_search) or when NOT to use it, so it stops short of explicit when/when-not routing.

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