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

Annotations already declare a safe read-only, idempotent, non-destructive call, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing the 12-month horizon, the uniform formula across options, and the publisher's conflict of interest as a staff augmentation firm. It stops short of describing the output shape, but that is partially excused by the absent output schema.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core comparison, then the methodology and bias disclosure. Every clause earns its place; nothing is filler.

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 read-only tool with full parameter coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description is nearly complete. The one gap is that no output schema exists and the description does not hint at what the comparison returns, which an agent would want to know.

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 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters and the baseline is 3. The phrase 'on your own numbers' loosely ties to the numbers parameter but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

Names a specific verb (compare) and a precisely enumerated resource (12-month cost and risk across six named hiring models), so the agent knows exactly what this produces. Nothing in the sibling list overlaps this resource, so it is distinguishable despite not naming a sibling explicitly.

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?

The description never states when to reach for this tool versus the many adjacent hiring tools (check_hiring_fit, explain_ruzora_terms, start_honest_read). 'On your own numbers' hints at a prerequisite but gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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