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

Annotations already cover safety, idempotency, and read-only behavior. The description adds the output classification bands and the estimating nature of the tool, which is useful but does not go deeper into methodology, uncertainty, or data sources. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by the output bands and the business context. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant 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?

For a simple one-parameter read-only tool, the description covers the main purpose, the output bands, and the intended planning use case. It lacks skill-value format guidance, but the overall definition is mostly sufficient given the tool's low complexity and the supporting annotations.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage for the single 'skill' parameter. The description only repeats that the tool operates 'for a skill' and gives no format, examples, or guidance on valid skill identifiers. This does not sufficiently compensate for the missing schema-level parameter documentation.

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 action and resource: 'Estimate candidates-per-open-role for a skill' and lists the output bands. This is clear and precise, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like jobs_concentration or jobs_momentum, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear use context by identifying this as a 'workforce-planning signal for prioritizing hard-to-fill roles.' It does not name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the intended scenario is easy to infer.

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