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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint; the description adds the crucial behavioral fact that the returned request is a preview and is not executed, plus that the advisor is free and that sample_domain draws on cached hints without running a new lookup. Those are exactly the traits an agent needs to avoid assuming a side effect.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the routing rule, then the non-execution caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title.

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?

An output schema exists, so return shape need not be explained; the description covers what is returned conceptually (tool, price, balance, request preview). With annotations, full schema coverage, and only one required parameter, an agent has everything needed 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 description coverage is 100% and all four parameters are documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the intent (goal → tool + price estimate) but adds no format, syntax, or range detail beyond the schema.

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 and resource — a free advisor that maps a stated goal to the matching HirePulse tool along with price, free-call balance, and a ready-to-run request — and enumerates the goal categories it handles. It explicitly separates itself from the sibling get_company_profile, so an agent can pick between them without opening 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?

Gives an explicit use condition ("when the right tool or expected cost is unclear") and an explicit alternative with its own condition ("go directly to get_company_profile for a known domain and a full company brief"). Nothing is left to inference about routing.

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