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

Annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true) declare safe, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds that the tool returns specific fields (company name, URL, job count, tech stack). This additional context beyond annotations is valuable. No contradiction.

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 concise sentences with no extraneous text. It front-loads the core purpose and return values. Every sentence adds value.

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 tool has annotations covering read/idempotent hints and an output schema (though not shown, indicated in context). The description mentions return fields. For a search tool with standard filters, this is nearly complete. Missing explicit mention of optional parameters or pagination behavior, but schema handles default values.

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% with descriptions for all 4 parameters. The description lists filter criteria (technologies, country, min jobs) but does not add meaning beyond the schema's descriptions. Baseline score of 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 states the tool finds companies by technology stack with filters like technologies, country, and minimum jobs. It specifies the return fields. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool 'jobs.theirstack.search', which may overlap in functionality.

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 implies usage for tech stack-based company discovery but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives in the sibling group. No when-not or exclusion criteria are mentioned.

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