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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: it is a bounded single round-trip replacing five calls, each section is capped to keep payloads compact, `max_age` is honored in seconds, and a company with no ATS/board data returns a `{job_id, status: "crawling"}` sentinel. Auth expectations and the deprecated key path are left to the schema, keeping this short of 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-loaded with the payload inventory, then the usage trigger, then the edge-case return and the cheaper alternative. The long enumeration sentence is dense but each listed section is substantively distinct; not a wasted sentence, though the opening list runs long.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden and does so for the notable non-happy path (`{job_id, status: "crawling"}`) plus the section-level composition of the success payload. Remaining gap is the undocumented `idempotency_key` and no note on how large the capped payload may be.

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 only 25% (just the deprecated `plane_api_key`), so the description must compensate. It does explain `max_age` semantics (seconds) and contextualizes `company_id` as an id the caller already holds, but `idempotency_key` is never addressed, leaving one parameter undocumented in both places.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('pre-action brief for one company') and enumerates the exact payload sections (hiring pulse, deduped open reqs, first-hire events, reposted reqs, ATS migrations). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling `hiring_pulse`, so an agent can select between them without opening another schema.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('right before writing outreach or a qualification note'), a precondition ('a company_id you already hold'), and an explicit alternative ('If you only need the velocity number, `hiring_pulse` is cheaper'). When-to-use and the competing option are both spelled out.

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