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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it discloses the split between new and already-reported items, and explicitly states that on a scheduled run the tool should "report only the new items and stay silent when there are none." This is valuable context for an agent deciding how to present results.

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 compact and front-loaded: the first sentence gives the core function, the second gives the use case, the third gives scheduling behavior, and the fourth states alternatives. Every sentence contributes distinct information with no redundancy or 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 schema coverage, a readOnlyHint annotation, and clear sibling distinction, the description is complete enough. It explains what the tool covers, when to use it, how it behaves on schedules, and which alternatives to choose for other scenarios. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by the description's explanation of the new vs. previously reported split.

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?

The input schema already covers all three parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3; the description reinforces the intended use of only_new and include_hiring ("what is new since the last check," "is anyone hiring") but does not add new technical meaning beyond the schema. It adequately aligns the parameters with the tool's purpose without compensating for any schema gap.

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 and resource: it reports "recent news and hiring movement" for known companies, with a clear scope ("several at once") and a distinguishing split between new and previously reported items. It also explicitly names sibling tools it is not (research_company, web_search), so an agent can differentiate it without inspecting other schemas.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: "Use for watching companies over time: what has happened at my clients, is anyone hiring, anything I should know before I reach out." It also provides exclusions and alternatives: "For one company in depth use research_company; for the open web use web_search," and it specifies scheduled-run behavior with only_new.

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