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

Annotations provide minimal info (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds that it provisions slug and branding, which are side effects beyond mere creation. However, it does not disclose rate limits, required permissions, whether the company is immediately active, or if the operation is reversible. More detail would be beneficial for a creation 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?

The description is extremely concise: one sentence and a fragment, totaling 22 words. It front-loads the primary action ('Create a client company') and efficiently conveys the key side effects. No extraneous information.

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 tool has 8 parameters, no output schema, and sparse annotations, the description covers the main purpose and entrypoint context. It mentions key outputs (career-site URL, branding). However, it omits mention of required parameters (name, company_owner_email, company_owner_name) and does not specify what the response contains (e.g., company ID), which could be inferred but is not explicit. Overall adequate but not exhaustive.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. The description mentions 'name' and 'logo' but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. For example, it does not clarify the difference between 'url' and 'website' or the purpose of 'company_owner_email'. The description provides no additional semantic depth over the schema, so 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 clearly states the tool creates a client company (partner tenant), provisions career-site URL and branding. It distinguishes from sibling create tools like hires_create_application and hires_create_candidate, and from hires_update_company, by specifying 'Create' and 'client company'. The phrase 'Typical entrypoint for multi-tenant onboarding' adds clear context.

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 implies this is the first step in onboarding, suggesting when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., if the company already exists, use hires_update_company) or mention alternatives like hires_create_candidate for creating candidate-type entities. The context is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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