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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it reads the company's live board, salary data appears only where the board publishes pay, and change data comes from a daily record. It doesn't state rate limits or failure behavior for unknown companies, but the additions are substantive.

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?

Front-loaded with the core value (hiring at a glance) and then densifies the output list; every clause maps to a distinct returned metric. It is one long sentence but not padded, with only minor density cost.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so thoroughly: counts by department and location, remote share, per-currency salary ranges, and opened/closed roles over the window. Combined with source-board and input guidance, an agent has enough to call it correctly.

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 both parameters are already documented, including the 7/30 enum-like constraint for days. The description restates the same facts (7 or 30 days, company name/board name/careers URL) without adding format details or defaults beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource (aggregate hiring summary for one company) and enumerates the outputs: per-department/per-location counts, remote share, salary ranges, and 7/30-day change. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_open_jobs and job_changes, which imply individual listings or deltas rather than a rolled-up profile.

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 clear context for use (a company name, board name, or careers URL; reads live Greenhouse/Ashby/Lever/Workable boards) and implies the summary-oriented use case. It stops short of explicitly naming when to prefer compare_companies or job_changes instead, so an exclusion rule is missing.

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