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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: it reveals the analytical method (scope-over-years), that it flags title inflation, and that it returns '3 questions' — output-shaping context the annotations do not carry.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The dual mode is stated first, the method constraint second, and the output value last — an effective front-loaded structure.

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 compensates by telling the agent what to expect (title-inflation flags, three differentiating questions) and confirms the accepted evidence inputs. For a 4-parameter, 100%-covered read-only tool this is nearly complete; only explicit prerequisite/routing guidance is missing.

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 100%, so each parameter (mode, company_size, role_description, candidate_evidence) is already documented in the schema, including the two-valued enum. The description only echoes the candidate inputs ('CV, interview notes or an assessment report'), which adds little beyond the schema baseline.

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 states a specific verb+resource ('work out what level a role really needs ... or what level a candidate really is') and splits the task cleanly into the two branches the tool supports. Its scope ('by scope, not years') and its output ('flags title inflation and gives 3 questions') are concrete enough that an agent can separate it from siblings like check_hiring_fit or build_role_scorecard.

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?

Usage is implied: use it to determine the level a role needs, or the level a candidate is, and the description hints at the methodology ('by scope, not years'). However, it names no sibling alternative and gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance, so an agent must infer routing from the surrounding tool list.

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