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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only' partly restates structured data. However, 'Contains no personal data' is genuine extra context beyond annotations, telling the agent the output is safe to surface or aggregate. It does not disclose the aggregation time window or whether results are cached, which would matter for a metrics 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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the returned metrics and followed by the two safety-relevant facts. Nothing is padded, though the metric list could be slightly tightened.

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?

For a read-only aggregate with no output schema, the description covers what is returned and the privacy/safety posture, which is most of what an agent needs. The main gap is the absence of any timeframe or scoping note for the numbers.

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?

There is only one optional parameter (language) and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains it fully, including the default-to-account-language behavior. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names the specific resource (company-wide recruiting numbers) and enumerates the metrics returned: open jobs, candidates, completed interviews, average score, plan usage. This lets an agent separate it from list/detail siblings like listar_vagas or detalhar_candidato, which return records rather than aggregates. It stops short of an explicit 'use this instead of X' framing, but the aggregate nature is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is a dashboard-style overview call, but there is no statement of when to prefer it over listar_vagas/listar_candidatos or any prerequisite. No exclusions or alternatives are named, leaving routing to inference.

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