Hiring trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds valuable latency context ('The first call for many months can take ~1 s per uncached month'), which is behavioral information not captured by annotations. It does not mention output structure, but with an output schema present, that is less critical.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core computation, followed by an example and a performance caveat. No wasted words.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so the description needn't explain return values. It covers the computation, an example use case, and latency. It could be slightly more complete by clarifying the 'months' parameter or noting any data freshness limits, but it is largely sufficient for correct invocation.

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 50%: the 'technologies' parameter is well documented with an example, but 'months' has no description. The description states 'the last N monthly threads', implying the 'months' parameter controls the window but doesn't clarify the default (6) or maximum (12) beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate given partial schema coverage.

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 states a precise computation: 'For each of the last N monthly threads, counts how many posts mention each technology and how many offer remote/hybrid/onsite.' This is a specific verb (counts) applied to specific resources (posts, technologies, work modes), and it is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_hiring_threads (enumeration) and search_jobs (search).

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?

It gives a concrete example use case ('is demand for Rust growing?'), which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name the sibling alternatives, so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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