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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the description does not need to carry the full safety burden. It adds useful report-content context by naming the metrics and explaining the decision-relevant combination of cost per hire and retention, although it could say more about defaults or aggregation 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 front-loaded with the report purpose and the key metrics, followed by the interpretation example. It is mostly tight, though 'Read-only' repeats the annotation and the example sentence is somewhat long.

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?

It is complete enough to know what the report contains and how to interpret its central columns, and there is no output schema requiring detailed return-value explanation. However, for a three-parameter report with no schema descriptions, the missing parameter formats and filter semantics leave a clear gap.

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 should explain the parameters more fully. It only says 'Optional period and source_id,' which confirms optionality but does not specify date formats for since/until or exactly how source_id filters the report.

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 states a specific report: 'Channel ROI: per source/campaign' and enumerates the exact metrics it contains, including applications, interview and internship reach, hires, conversion, spend, cost per hire, and 30-day retention. That granularity clearly separates it from generic funnel or retention siblings.

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 implies the tool is for channel ROI analysis and explains how to interpret cost per hire against retention, but it does not explicitly say when to use this report versus alternatives such as hr_funnel_report or hr_hire_retention_report, nor does it state when not to use it.

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