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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses the crawling edge case with the exact returned shape, tells the agent to poll again later, and explicitly warns against reading crawling as 'not hiring'. This is genuinely useful behavior disclosure.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place: core output first, usage instruction second, freshness and edge-case handling next, sibling routing last. There is no redundant restatement of the tool name or title.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the return shape and edge cases, and it does: metrics, max_age behavior, crawling status, and the not-hiring interpretation. For a read-only lookup with one required parameter, this is 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?

With schema description coverage at only 25%, the description compensates well for company_id and max_age: company_id ties to a held company, and max_age is defined in seconds and controls freshness. It does not explain idempotency_key, though the name plus the idempotentHint make that gap lower-risk.

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 opens with a precise definition of the artifact: one number set for one company, enumerating reqs opened, velocity, direction, surge flag, and momentum. It also names sibling alternatives, so the agent can distinguish it from pre_action_brief and is_hiring.

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?

It gives explicit usage guidance: use it to rank or score a company once a company_id is already held. It also routes to pre_action_brief for the full picture and is_hiring for a cheap yes/no, leaving little to inference.

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