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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, closed-world lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the content of the result — including 'trust status per note,' which tells the agent how to interpret returned data. It doesn't discuss result size, pagination, or behavior on unknown names.

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 that opens with the resource scope, followed by an em-dash enumeration and a usage cue. The enumeration is long but each item conveys coverage the agent needs; nothing is redundant.

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?

The output schema exists, so return structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the content scope and a usage cue for a simple single-param lookup. Only minor gaps remain: behavior on unknown employers and name-format expectations.

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?

With one parameter at 0% schema coverage, the description must carry the burden. It does add meaning by saying the argument is an 'employer or agency,' clarifying that the name may be either type, but it gives no format guidance (domain? exact legal name? fuzzy match?).

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 makes the resource explicit (an employer/agency dossier) and enumerates exactly what it covers — hiring stages, questions, response times, visa policy, pay bands, red flags. However, it's phrased as a noun ('Everything known about…') rather than a verb and never names or contrasts with siblings like hirelog_search or hirelog_ats.

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 gives one triggering cue, 'Use before a call,' which is a concrete workflow hint. But there are no exclusions, no mention of when to use hirelog_search or hirelog_ats instead, and no indication of what to do when the company is unknown.

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