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

The description discloses that partial results are marked partial and list what is missing, which is a useful behavioral trait beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention that the tool stores watch state and tracks changes over time, which is a side effect implied by readOnlyHint=false and explained only in the parameter schema. No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences plus cost info, with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose and a key behavioral note, and every word adds value. Structure is clean and immediately scannable.

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 tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description gives a serviceable overview but omits the tool's change-tracking behavior and the two slice types, both of which are covered in the schema. The reliance on schema details is acceptable, but the description alone would leave an agent without a full picture of statefulness and integration with company-hiring-radar.

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%, and each parameter (especially 'slices') has detailed descriptions covering format, examples, and behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as providing a cross-section of hiring demand by role and geography, assembled from multiple job sources in one call. This gives a specific resource and scope, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'. It also implies differentiation from siblings by emphasizing the multi-source aggregation, but does not name an alternative.

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 implies when to use the tool ('in one call' suggests an aggregate view), but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over sibling tools like company-hiring-radar. There are no exclusions or alternative recommendations, leaving usage context to be inferred from the multi-source framing.

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