time_to_hire

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

With no annotations, the description takes on the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states 'Read-only' upfront, signaling a safe read operation. It also describes the return values (average, median, min, max days) and the scope (hired candidates). While it doesn't mention rate limits or data freshness, the read-only nature is sufficiently transparent.

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 four lines, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence earns its place: purpose, read-only flag, example queries, parameter guidance, and output summary. No redundancy or fluff.

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?

For a read-only metrics tool with two optional parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, how to filter, what it returns, and safety. With an output schema present and a clear description, the agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 both parameters described. The description adds value by explaining that omitting job_id yields org-wide metrics, which is not present in the schema's 'default null'. This extra context helps the agent understand the filter vs. global behavior 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?

The description clearly states the tool provides 'Time-to-hire metrics for hired candidates', which is a specific verb+resource combination. It distinguishes itself from siblings like pipeline_metrics by focusing on hired candidates and days-to-offer. Including example user queries ('how long does it take to hire?') further clarifies its 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?

The description explicitly tells users when to use the tool via natural language examples ('Users say "how long does it take to hire?"'). It also provides clear scoping instructions: pass job_id for one role, omit for org-wide metrics, and cross-references list_jobs for ID lookup. This is actionable guidance with no ambiguity.

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