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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), so the description must cover behavior. It discloses that the tool returns a full plan and that CSV export is Pro-only, which is useful. But it does not state whether this operation is read-only, whether it modifies anything, or any side effects. Given the absence of annotations, a 3 is reasonable because it adds some context but misses a clear statement of read-only nature.

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?

The description is two sentences, compact and front-loaded with the core purpose. The CSV note is appended succinctly. It could be more concise by trimming redundant words like 'whole plan' but overall efficient and focused.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema, no nested objects), the description covers the main behavior and the CSV option. It doesn't describe return format in detail, but since there is no output schema, the agent might need to infer the structure. However, the description lists the data elements (percent complete, overdue count, outstanding), which is sufficient for most use cases. Slight gap on CSV format details, but acceptable.

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%, so both 'hire' and 'as_csv' are already well-documented in the schema. The description reinforces what 'hire' means (the hire's progress) and adds the Pro-only constraint for as_csv, which is a small addition. Since the schema does most of the work, baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies the tool as showing a single hire's complete onboarding plan, listing specific components (tasks, owners, due dates, status, percent complete, overdue count, outstanding items). It distinguishes from sibling tools like onboarding_overdue by scope (one hire's whole plan vs. overdue items) and from onboarding_hire_list by focus on progress details.

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?

The description states its primary use (showing a hire's progress) and hints at the CSV option for Pro users, but it does not explicitly say when NOT to use it or mention alternatives. However, the scope is clear enough that an agent can infer it is for a single hire's plan, not for listing hires or tasks.

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