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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered; the description adds the snapshot semantics ('today') and the exact composition of the aggregate response. It does not cover staleness/refresh cadence or the shape of the returned structure, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Content is front-loaded: what the summary contains comes first, usage examples second. The first sentence is long and list-heavy, but every enumerated item is genuinely part of the returned summary rather than 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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of describing the result, and it does so thoroughly by listing every aggregation dimension. An agent knows what it will get back and when calling it is worthwhile.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds the useful nuance that its output is meant to inform filter selection for search_finance_internships, which is meaning the empty schema cannot convey.

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 names a specific artifact (a summary of the Sifter jobs board today) and enumerates exactly what it aggregates: open internship and full-time counts, closings this week, per-summer counts, per-area counts, and top firms/cities. This is clearly distinguishable from the sibling search_finance_internships, which returns listings rather than aggregate counts.

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?

It states when to use it (broad questions) with three concrete example queries and explicitly points to search_finance_internships as the follow-on for filtered searching. There is no explicit when-not-to-use clause, but the broad-vs-search contrast is clear enough to route correctly.

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