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

The annotations already mark this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: caching via `max_age` seconds, bounded round-trip design, compactness from section caps, and a `{job_id, status: "crawling"}` fallback when no ATS/board data exists. This is solid but does not fully detail every edge-case behavior.

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 front-loaded: the first clause captures the core purpose, and each sentence earns its place by addressing content, usage, cache behavior, and alternative tool. The long list of sections is slightly heavy but not redundant.

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 burden of explaining return values, and it does so by listing the five included sections and the crawling fallback. It also covers usage timing and freshness semantics. It stops short of describing the full exact response shape or pagination, but it is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool appropriately.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify `max_age` is in seconds and ties `company_id` to an ID the agent already holds. However, it does not add meaning for `idempotency_key`, and `plane_api_key` is handled by the schema's own deprecation note rather than the description.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: give an agent everything needed before acting on one company in one round-trip. It enumerates five concrete data sections, and it distinguishes itself from the sibling tool `hiring_pulse` by saying that tool is cheaper when only the velocity number is needed.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use it right before writing outreach or a qualification note for a `company_id` you already hold.' It also provides an explicit alternative: 'If you only need the velocity number, `hiring_pulse` is cheaper.' This is strong routing behavior.

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