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

The description mentions the cold behavior returning a crawling status, which provides some insight into asynchronous response handling. However, it does not disclose side effects, authentication requirements, rate limiting, or error conditions. With no annotations, more detail would be beneficial.

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 relatively short (two sentences) but uses jargon like 'dual-metered' and 'cold' without explanation for newcomers. It could be more straightforward while remaining concise.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and 4 parameters, the description is insufficient. It explains the cold response and max_age but omits the full response shape, error handling, and parameter details, making it incomplete for reliable tool invocation.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It only elaborates on max_age and its effect on response behavior. company_id, plane_api_key, and idempotency_key are not mentioned, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 clearly states the tool provides hiring velocity/direction/momentum and mentions dual-metered behavior with max_age. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like is_hiring or get_open_reqs, which reduces clarity on when to use this specific tool.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lacks context such as prerequisites, typical use cases, or scenarios where another tool would be more appropriate.

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