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

Adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: discloses data sources (own repos, work on others' projects, role search repos), timing and rate-limit behavior, saved-vs-new analysis cost, timeout retry semantics, ranking instability, and that someone not yet in the role is added first with reason. These are exactly the operational details an agent needs.

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?

Front-loads the main action and then layers in scope, cost, ranking behavior, and timeout handling without filler. Although dense, every clause carries actionable information for selecting or invoking the tool.

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?

Covers the complex mutation-like behavior, external reads, timing, rate limits, ranking effects, and retry behavior despite having no output schema. The return value is summarized as AyHire's call and place among picks, though the exact response shape is not detailed; still, the description is largely complete for correct use.

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 67%, and the description adds useful meaning for reason (kept when the person is added now) and implies role_id determines criteria and ranking. It does not further document role_id formatting, but username is already described in the schema and the lifecycle of reason is clarified.

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?

States a specific multi-step action: analyze one person, judge them against the role's criteria, check availability, and return them with AyHire's call and ranking. It clearly scopes the tool to a single person within a role, distinguishing it from bulk search/find tools.

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?

Gives clear usage context: score people worth it because new analyses cost 15-25 seconds and count toward the hourly limit, while saved analyses are free and instant. It also says to call get_role for the final ranking and to retry once after a timeout. It does not explicitly compare to sibling score_candidate, but otherwise guidance is strong.

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