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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the key behavioral trait: nothing changes until the person confirms in arkerah's support chat, unless assistants are permitted to act without asking, in which case it executes immediately and reports so. That conditional execution path is exactly the context annotations cannot convey, and it is consistent with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false.

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 sentences, purpose front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The final sentence is a long compound clause that could be tightened, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With one parameter, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: what the tool proposes, how to name the company, and the confirmation/auto-execute flow. It leaves unstated what happens to an unconfirmed proposal, a minor gap.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: 'Name the company as they hide it' tells the agent to use the person's own hidden-side naming rather than an arbitrary or canonical name.

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 names a specific verb-plus-resource: proposing to re-show jobs from a company the person hides. It is clearly the inverse of hide_company, so an agent can place it among siblings, but it never names hide_company or any other sibling explicitly to sharpen the distinction.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is for companies the person has hidden and wants shown again. It gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives, so it stops short of the top tier.

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