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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, and the description adds useful context beyond those: the sensitive-tier access rules, the OAuth/connect card caveat, and the instruction to 'Call it on the first clear ask — do not re-ask in chat.' It does not specify exactly what destructive side effect may occur, but the annotations cover that baseline and the description adds meaningful operational behavior.

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 well-structured: purpose is front-loaded, trigger examples follow, and the sensitive-tier behavior is contained in a clearly delimited block. The bracket block is somewhat dense and includes a tangential OAuth/connector caveat, but overall each section 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description states the return shape ('deep pre-researched company context + a single-proposal directive'), the required precondition (get_team_roster first), and permission handling. It could be more explicit about what the 'single-proposal directive' should contain or cases where this tool should not be used, but for a two-parameter tool it is reasonably complete.

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 100%, so the schema already fully explains initial_request and companyId. The description reinforces company scope but adds no new parameter-level detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 deliverable: 'Research the company and return everything needed to propose a new role in ONE shot.' It clearly defines the output as 'deep pre-researched company context + a single-proposal directive' and distinguishes itself by saying it is 'NOT a multi-turn questionnaire.' This is enough to separate it from adjacent hiring/team 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?

Lists explicit trigger situations: 'wants to open a role, asks who to add next / what seats are missing / look at my team, needs a specialist, or describes a problem a standing seat would own.' It also gives a precondition: 'Call get_team_roster first to check existing coverage.' It does not, however, name alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use list, so it stops just short of a 5.

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