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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds 'curated' and 'company-level', which hint at preprocessed, firm-level aggregation, but it does not disclose output shape, pagination, freshness, or other behavioral details. This is adequate given the read-only annotations, but not rich.

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 a single, focused sentence with no filler. It front-loads the verb and resource, then adds the relevant filters, making it appropriate and efficient for the tool's low complexity.

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 only two parameters, full schema coverage, and read-only annotations, the description provides enough context for a straightforward invocation. It does not describe the exact payload shape, but this is acceptable for a simple retrieval tool; a note distinguishing it from related job-signal siblings would have made it complete.

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 100%, so the input schema already documents location and role fully. The description adds only a brief restatement of the filters and does not provide additional detail such as accepted formats, examples, or constraints beyond what the schema already contains.

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 verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('company-level hiring signals'), and the key filters ('location and optional role family'). 'Company-level' helps distinguish it from city-level or skill-level job tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 makes it clear the tool is for retrieving company-level hiring signals filtered by location and optionally role family. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool over closely related siblings like hiring_signal or jobs_concentration, and it does not state exclusions or preferred use cases.

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