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

Annotations already declare read-only/non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context beyond annotations: no authentication, no API keys or proxies, $0.01/call, x402 (USDC on base), and data sources (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby, news). It does not detail output format or error handling, but the added cost and access information is substantial.

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 extremely concise: one sentence with a compelling question and a clear statement of function, followed by cost/access details. No superfluous words; every line earns its place.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description partly explains return values ('one intent score per company'), which is a useful minimum. It also covers data sources, pricing, and examples through schema prefill. It could further specify score range or additional returned metadata, but the core is adequately complete for a read-only aggregator tool.

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%, with detailed parameter descriptions for 'companies' and 'maxConcurrency'. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 states the tool's function: combines public hiring and news signals into one intent score per company. It uses a specific verb ('combines') and resource ('public hiring activity, recent news') and answers the question 'Is this company in-market right now?' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that focus on single signals.

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 gives a clear use case (assessing if a company is in-market) and mentions practical constraints ('No login, no API keys, no proxies'), but it does not explicitly list alternatives or when not to use the tool. The combination framing implies it is for use when both hiring and news signals are needed, but without explicit exclusions.

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