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

Annotations already establish the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds the 30d/90d velocity windows and the breadth of returned dimensions, which is useful context, but since an output schema exists it does not need to describe return contents and adds no auth/limit/edge-case behavior.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the output dimensions, then the strategic rationale. Dense but each sentence contributes; no obvious padding.

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 full parameter coverage, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers what the tool returns and why it matters. It is nearly sufficient for correct invocation, with the only gap being explicit alternatives to sibling tools.

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% (both ticker and category documented in schema), so the baseline is 3. The mention of 'role breakdown by category' loosely maps to the optional category filter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) plus resource (Seek NZ hiring intelligence) scoped to an NZX company, and enumerates the concrete outputs (listings, velocity, role breakdown, salary ranges, location, sector comparison). An agent can distinguish this from the many governance/financial siblings without opening a schema.

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?

Provides a rationale ('hiring acceleration is a leading indicator for company growth or restructuring') that implies when it is useful, but names no alternatives and gives no explicit when/when-not conditions. Usage is inferred rather than prescribed.

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