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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing pricing ($0.01/call), the lack of authentication requirements, and the data sources used. This helps the agent understand cost and access prerequisites beyond what annotations provide.

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, using two sentences and a pricing line to convey purpose, data sources, and ease of use. It is front-loaded with a question that hooks the use case, and every sentence adds essential information without redundancy.

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 tool has no output schema, the description should clarify the return format. It mentions an 'intent score per company' but does not specify whether it's a number, label, or structured object. For a simple tool with 2 parameters and no nested objects, the description is somewhat complete but lacks output details needed for an agent to interpret results.

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 both parameters (companies and maxConcurrency) already well-documented in the schema (e.g., company format options, concurrency limits). The description does not add new meaning or additional usage details for the parameters, so the baseline score 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 purpose: it computes an intent score by combining public hiring activity and recent news for a company, mentioning specific sources (Greenhouse, Lever, Ashby) and news categories. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like company-hiring-radar or funding-alert, which could provide individual 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 implies the tool is for assessing market intent ('Is this company in-market right now?') and emphasizes ease of use (no login, no API keys), but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or when-not-to-use, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's name and siblings.

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