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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: no Energy charge, demand-driven rather than scheduled collection, deduplicate downstream by eventId, and it does not create leads or contact anyone.

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?

Four tight sentences covering behavior, cursor lifecycle, deduplication, and cost/side-effect profile, with the core action and default front-loaded. No filler, though the density is high and some sentences carry multiple ideas.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description carries some of the return-value burden, and it does mention eventId for deduplication. Still, for a 6-parameter tool with a nested filters object, the filter parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, leaving real gaps.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage, the description must compensate, and it partially does: it explains the start enum values (recent=30 days, now=cursor) and cursor reuse semantics. However, limit, the nested filters (roles, companyDomains, min/maxHeadcount), and the name const are not explained; workspaceId is already documented in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read source-linked hiring observations from PumpGTM's shared index,' which concretely identifies the data domain. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_signal_types or record_customer_signal, so it falls short of the sibling-routing bar for a 5.

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?

Gives clear operational context: default start=recent returns up to 30 days, start=now returns a forward-looking cursor, and the cursor should be reused with the same filters to continue. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating when NOT to use this tool versus list_signal_types.

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