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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered, and the description adds real behavioral value: the advisor is free, it reports the 'real cost', your 'free-call balance', and produces a 'ready-to-run request' rather than executing anything. It does not say whether the call itself consumes balance or how routing accuracy is bounded, which keeps it short of 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler: the tool's role and its outputs come first, followed by the covered goal domains. It is dense but every clause carries information, so it earns its length.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be restated, and the annotations cover the read-only profile. Still, with 0% schema coverage the agent has no guidance on what to put in agent_goal, when domain_count or sample_domain matter, or how budget_usd influences the recommendation — a real gap for a four-parameter routing tool.

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 0% across four parameters, so the description must carry the load and largely does not. 'Describe your goal' loosely maps to agent_goal, but budget_usd, domain_count, and sample_domain are never mentioned, and the goal categories listed are not tied to any parameter or format.

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 verb and resource ('free advisor for AI agents') and enumerates the goal domains it handles (B2B leads, hiring signals, buying intent, tech stack, Google Ads, VC due diligence). It also states the deliverable — the right HirePulse tool, real cost, free-call balance, and a ready-to-run request — which clearly separates it from the lookup siblings like batch_lookup or detect_website_tech_stack.

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 tells the agent to 'describe your goal' and get routed, which implies this is the entry point before invoking concrete lookup tools, and the enumerated goal categories show the contexts it covers. However, it never explicitly says 'call this first' or states when NOT to use it versus going straight to a sibling tool, so one inference step remains.

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