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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral detail - that a ready-to-read summary is returned in a `say` field - but says nothing about default window, staleness, or result shape.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded, with no filler. The first sentence largely restates the title, which is minor redundancy, but the second and third sentences each carry distinct information.

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 digest with no output schema, the description points the agent at the `say` summary field, which is helpful, but leaves the `since` semantics and the default scope undefined. Adequate but with clear gaps for correct invocation.

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 single parameter `since` has 0% schema description coverage and the description only echoes it vaguely as 'since a moment'. It does not specify the accepted format (ISO timestamp, relative expression, opaque cursor) or what the default is when the optional param is omitted.

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 concrete function: summarizing employer-side changes (new applicants, messages, interviews booked) since a point in time. It is understandable without opening the schema, but it never distinguishes itself from closely related siblings like get_hiring_overview, get_hiring_stats, or whats_new.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no condition that selects this over the other hiring-summary siblings, and no note on prerequisites. The reader must infer that it is a 'recent delta' digest purely from the phrasing.

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