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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: rows are observations, not actionable job postings; ordering is newest first; and specific fields (observationDate, lastVerifiedAt, provenance, meta.evidence.truthState, synthetic) must be checked for validity. This adds significant transparency beyond the schema.

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 dense and informative, with the core purpose front-loaded. The second sentence about recordPurpose is slightly redundant and jargony, but every sentence contributes essential caveats. It is appropriately sized for a tool with this complexity.

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 lack of output schema and annotations, the description provides a solid behavioral foundation: what data is returned, its nature (evidence observations), and validation steps. It does not enumerate return fields beyond the mentioned ones, but the caveats cover the most critical context for correct 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, only noting that filtering by occupation, sector and geography is possible. It does not explain syntax or format details for any parameter, relying on the schema descriptions.

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 returns 'Source-attributed hiring-activity evidence, newest first and filterable by occupation, sector and geography.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting that rows are 'observations with isActionable=false, not jobs offered for application through OEX,' which sets it apart from job search tools like search_employers.

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?

The description provides context on when to use this tool (for hiring-activity evidence) and an explicit exclusion ('not jobs offered for application through OEX'). It also advises checking specific fields before using data as current evidence, which is useful guidance, though it does not name alternative tools.

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