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

Annotations only cover readOnly/openWorld; the description adds the non-obvious commercial and epistemic facts: $0.01 per result, free when there is no board or no open jobs, and that the score is a heuristic rather than confirmed purchase intent. Cost and reliability caveats are exactly the context structured fields cannot convey.

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, each load-bearing: what it returns, what it costs, when to use it and what to use instead. The core value proposition is front-loaded in the first clause.

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?

Output schema exists so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still names the score components, the data source, and the cost model. For a 2-parameter read-only lookup this is everything an agent needs 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% and the domain parameter is fully documented in the schema (format, maxLength, example); the description adds no further syntax or constraint detail. Baseline 3 applies since the schema carries the parameter burden.

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-like operation and resource: a hiring-based buying-intent score (0-100) for a company domain sourced from its public job board, with the result's components enumerated. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_company_open_jobs and get_company_profile, so an agent can pick it without reading sibling 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 a positive use case ("prioritize a known company by hiring signals") plus explicit alternatives with the condition that selects each (role listings vs. combined research). Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is the right call.

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