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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond that by disclosing the output shape: velocity score, tier, growth verdict, and sales_hint. It does not explain edge-case behavior like missing data or how limit interacts with the query modes, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 compact and front-loaded with the core concept before detailing input modes and outputs. The phrase 'Buyer-shaped hiring velocity envelope' is somewhat jargon-heavy and could be clearer, but the rest of the description is dense and free of filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description does the necessary work of naming the key returned fields, the score range, growth verdict examples, and the sales_hint's buyer-profile mapping. It is slightly incomplete on exact optionality of returned fields and the role/limit behavior across both views, but it is strong overall for a signal-style read tool.

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 67%, and the description compensates well by explaining the relationship between domain/company and location, marking role as optional, and interpreting buyer_profile in terms of sales_hint mapping. It does not explain the limit parameter, though its schema constraints are self-explanatory.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a hiring-velocity signal that is shaped by a buyer profile, and it distinguishes two distinct access modes: company-keyed via domain/company and market-keyed via location. This separates it from generic jobs_* tools and makes its purpose immediately actionable.

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 gives explicit guidance on which parameters to use for each intended view, including that role is optional for the market-keyed view. It does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.

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