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

Adds real context beyond the annotations: no candidate-facing notification is triggered, and the call costs $0.01 with no charge on failure. Annotations already declare it is not read-only and not idempotent; the description does not mention that reruns are not deduplicated or whether a move can be reversed, keeping it below 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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: action and target, notification alternative, and cost. Nothing is repeated from the schema or the title.

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 mutating, non-idempotent, non-free tool with no output schema, the description covers cost and notification side effects but omits return behavior, what happens to the previous stage or history, and whether moving to 'Hired' duplicates hiring_hire_applicant. Enough to call it, not enough to call it confidently.

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 has to carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that 'note' is optional and that 'stage' is a free-form string naming a pipeline stage, with examples, but it never states what the valid stage values are or how applicant_id is obtained.

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 ('Move an applicant to another stage of their job') and gives concrete stage examples (Interview, Hired, Rejected). It does not differentiate from the closely related sibling hiring_hire_applicant, which appears to overlap with the 'Hired' case, so it falls short of 5.

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?

Clearly says candidates are not told and routes the agent to hiring_email_applicant for notification, which is an explicit alternative with a condition. It offers no guidance on when to use this versus hiring_hire_applicant or hiring_invite_to_interview, which are the nearest competing tools in the namespace.

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