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

Annotations already indicate write activity (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive intent (destructiveHint=false). The description adds value by revealing specific side effects: provisioning of a public career site (slug) and public branding (name, logo). This goes beyond the generic annotations and informs the agent of the scope of effects.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence (16 words) that front-loads the primary action, then adds a concise elaboration on side effects. No redundancy or filler; every word earns its place.

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 8 parameters (including a nested logo object), no output schema, and openWorldHint=true indicating external side effects, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter inputs, constraints, or outcomes beyond branding and career site, leaving significant gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 only 13% (few parameters have descriptions), yet the tool description only mentions 'name' and 'logo' in the context of branding. It does not clarify the required fields company_owner_email and company_owner_name, nor optional ones like website, is_staffing_agency, or the logo object's structure. The minimal hint about name/logo does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 action 'Create a client company' with a specific resource, and distinguishes it from other create tools (e.g., hires_create_job, hires_create_candidate) by focusing on company creation. It also specifies that it provisions a career site and branding, adding operational clarity beyond a generic create.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as hiring_update_company for modifications or hiring_restore_company for restoration. The name and description imply it is the correct tool for creating a company, but there is no direct comparison or exclusion of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name.

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