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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return payload (task, shortlist, tier, judge pins, verdict + distribution, Rule-6 digest, next steps, data_as_of). However it never states that this is a pure read, whether it can fail when the path is unassembled, or any permission requirements, leaving notable gaps for an unannotated tool.

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 the verb and resource leading and the return fields compactly listed after a colon. Dense and waste-free, though the field list borders on an output contract.

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?

With no output schema, the description steps in by enumerating the returned fields, which is exactly what an agent needs to know what comes back. The remaining omission is the read-only/permission profile that annotations would normally supply.

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 0% and the schema gives only a bare string, but the description adds the meaningful 'hp_…' id-prefix format hint. That partially compensates for the schema gap, though no failure behavior or sourcing of the id is described.

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 specific verb (Read) and resource (an assembled hire path by id), and enumerates the returned contents, which lets an agent distinguish it from assembler/lifecycle siblings like taifoon_hire_assemble. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: calling it 'assembled' hints the path must first be created via a sibling like hire_assemble, but the description never states when to reach for this versus the alternatives or what preconditions exist. No explicit when/when-not guidance is present.

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