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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the description repeating 'Read-only' adds nothing. It does earn credit for disclosing the five-row truncation of every breakdown and the single-round-trip aggregation behavior, which are not derivable from structured fields. What it omits is how the fixed 'last 7 days' window interacts with the since/until parameters.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the payload inventory front-loaded before the routing guidance. Every clause contributes either scope or selection criteria.

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 two-parameter read-only aggregation tool with strong annotations and no output schema, the content coverage and truncation caveat are largely sufficient to invoke it correctly. The one real shortfall is the unexplained since/until semantics against the stated 7-day default, which an agent may get wrong on a first call.

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 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it never mentions 'since' or 'until'. The mention of 'new candidates in the last 7 days' implies a default window but leaves an agent guessing whether since/until override it, and no expected date format is given. The two parameters are effectively undocumented across both description and 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 enumerates the exact payload: headline counters, new candidates in the last 7 days, active internships, SLA-overdue applications, funnel, and top-5 rejection reasons and channels. It also distinguishes itself from the specific report siblings by stating that it aggregates across dimensions rather than drilling into one. An agent knows precisely what resource it is calling and how it differs from hr_funnel_report or hr_dropoff_reasons_report.

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?

It gives an explicit when: answering 'how are we doing' in one round trip. It gives an explicit when-not plus alternative: use the specific reports when the question names a dimension, with the concrete reason (breakdowns truncated to five rows). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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