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

The annotations already state readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful non-obvious behavior: period-based cohort selection versus whole-history follow-up, plus guidance that a high hired_after_earlier_rejection rate is expected rather than an error. It does not describe limit behavior or output shape.

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?

It is front-loaded and compact, with the main metric first and the scoping caveat next. The interpretation sentence earns its place, though 'Read-only' duplicates the annotations.

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 report with no output schema and no schema descriptions for any parameter, the definition covers the core measure and temporal cohort semantics but leaves out limit behavior, return fields, and page/row handling. It is adequate but incomplete for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies that the period determines who is examined, which helps interpret since/until, but it does not explain the limit parameter, date format, inclusivity, or how date bounds apply.

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?

It states a specific population (people who applied more than once) and a specific derived metric (how often someone rejected earlier was hired later). This distinguishes it clearly from generic funnel, cohort, or source reports.

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 explains that the period selects who is examined and that each person is then read across their whole history, which gives clear usage context. It does not explicitly name an alternative report or say when not to use this one.

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