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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states that the tool 'returns' data, implying a read-only operation with no side effects. The nature of the output is fully disclosed, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 with high information density. The first sentence explains the return value; the second provides use cases and a contrast to per-record tools. No unnecessary words or repetition.

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 moderate complexity (no output schema, but aggregate data), the description fully covers what the tool returns (department breakdown, counts, net change) and when to use it. It also implicitly differentiates from siblings by emphasizing aggregate vs. individual records.

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?

The single parameter 'identifier' is fully described with three accepted forms: domain, ATS board slug, or company name. This covers 100% of the schema and gives the agent complete information needed to invoke the tool.

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's function: determining whether a company is hiring and where. It specifies the output—open roles by department, counts opened/closed over 7/30 days, and net change—which fully clarifies the purpose.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: use for sales and research questions about company growth, engineering expansion, and hiring slowdowns. The phrase 'One call, not per record' distinguishes it from sibling tools that return individual job postings.

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