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

The description goes beyond annotations by explicitly stating that it deliberately returns NO individual candidates, no names, profiles, or contact details. This is a critical behavioral guarantee. It also describes the return format (match depth band, typical experience, top skills/tools), which is valuable context not present in annotations.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, then output composition, then the key exclusion. Every sentence contributes unique information; there is no redundancy or filler.

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 read-only tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, the description fully sets expectations: it states what is returned, what is not returned, and when to use it. The annotations cover safety profile, so this is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters, so the description need not repeat them. It does not add significant semantic detail about parameters, but it does contextualize how skills/tools factor into the output, which is slightly beyond the schema.

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 checks how well Armasourcing's candidate pool covers a brief, with a specific verb ('check') and resource ('candidate pool'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools about bookings, terms, hiring process, and role lists by focusing on pool depth.

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 provides a clear use case: answer 'do you have people who can do X' before recommending a call. It also implicitly defines when not to use (when you need individual candidate details), but it does not explicitly name alternative tools as a contrast.

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