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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the primary behavior (top companies by active role count) but introduces ambiguity by saying 'optionally with average salary' without a corresponding parameter in the schema, suggesting an unsupported option. It lacks details on authentication, rate limits, sorting order, or response format.

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 concise: two sentences with no redundant wording. The first sentence states the core functionality, and the second adds a practical use case, making it easy to scan.

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 simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It doesn't clarify the output structure, whether results are sorted descending, or how the optional average salary is requested or represented. The ambiguity about salary reduces completeness.

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 for the sole parameter 'limit' is 100%, with explicit default and max values. The description adds no extra meaning for this parameter. However, the mention of 'average salary' as optional is misleading and may confuse the agent about whether additional parameters exist.

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 top AI/ML companies by active role count', using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like get_company (single company) and get_trending_companies (trending) by emphasizing hiring activity in AI.

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 phrase 'Useful for discovering who is hiring in AI' implies a usage scenario but does not explicitly compare with alternatives or state when not to use it. There is no mention of alternative tools like get_company or get_trending_companies, leaving the guidance implicit.

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