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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it discloses the crawling-state edge case (`{job_id, status:"crawling"}` and the warning not to read it as 'not hiring') and that freshness is governed by `max_age`. Doesn't discuss rate limits or auth, so not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the output contents, then usage, then the edge-case warning, then alternatives. Dense but every clause carries meaning; slightly long, but no wasted sentences.

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 no-output-schema, read-only tool, it fully describes the returned fields and the crawling fallback, which is the critical gap an agent would hit. Remaining unknowns (auth, pagination) are minor for a single-company pulse.

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 only 25%, so the description must compensate. It explains `max_age` semantics (freshness in seconds) which the bare schema doesn't, and clarifies `momentum` is a flow (postings per week) not a stock. `idempotency_key` and `plane_api_key` are left to the schema, keeping this short of a 5.

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?

Specific verb+resource: it enumerates exactly what one number set contains (count of reqs, `velocity` ratio, `direction`, surge flag, `momentum`) for a single company. An agent can tell precisely what comes back and how it differs from siblings like `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?

Explicit usage: 'rank or score a company you already hold a `company_id` for'. It names alternatives with conditions -- `pre_action_brief` for the whole picture, `is_hiring` for a cheap yes/no -- so routing is unambiguous.

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