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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, establishing the safety profile. The description adds the specific stats returned, which is helpful, but it does not disclose potential caveats like whether the stats are real-time, cached, or scoped to the current user/workspace. It does not contradict the 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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Aggregate stats') followed by a concise list of the specific statistics. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler content.

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?

Given the tool has no parameters, a clear read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description specifies exactly which three aggregate values are returned. This is sufficient for an agent to understand what the tool does and when to invoke it. The absence of an output schema is compensated by the explicit enumeration of stats.

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 tool has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The schema fully covers the absence of parameters, and the description adds no parameter-related information, but none is needed. The baseline for 0-param tools is 4.

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 this tool returns aggregate stats (companies tracked, active job count, newest posting date), which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_job and list_companies by focusing on summary aggregates rather than individual records.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or context where a sibling tool (e.g., search_jobs, list_companies) would be more appropriate. The usage context is entirely implied by the tool name and title.

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