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

Annotations already declare this as a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation. The description adds useful semantics — that the effect is to suppress a company and that a 'restore' path exists, implying reversibility — but says nothing about auth requirements, whether hiding affects existing applications, or how the modes interact.

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 enumerating the three capabilities with no filler. It is efficient, though the compressed 'restore a company key' clause reads ambiguously without the surrounding context.

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?

An output schema exists so return values needn't be described, but for a tool with three zero-documented parameters and distinct operation modes, the description omits validation formats, mode exclusivity, and side effects — leaving real gaps an agent must guess at.

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 0% schema description coverage the description carries the full burden, and it does loosely map all three parameters to their actions (hide_job → hide company, restore → restore a company key, seniority_levels → set seniority levels). However it never explains the opaque 32-character hex format for hide_job, what a 'company key' actually is, or the max-20 array constraint.

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?

Names three concrete operations on a specific resource: hiding a company for a job, restoring a company key, and setting seniority levels. This is far more informative than the bare tool name and lets an agent tell it apart from the read-only get_job_preferences, though it never states that routing explicitly.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus update_preferences or get_job_preferences, no mention of prerequisites, and no statement about whether the three operations can be combined in one call or are mutually exclusive modes.

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