pws_analyze_hiring

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds useful context by enumerating the factors used for ranking (company size, cash, etc.), but does not disclose return format, whether it considers all workers or only free agents, or pagination 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key inputs.

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 8 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is too brief. It does not clarify what the ranked output looks like, how limit affects results, or whether the ranking is based on current roster state vs. free agents.

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 schema description coverage of only 13% (only 'needs' is described), the description must compensate but does not. It mentions 'requested needs' and 'wage fit', but leaves parameters like style, gender, minAge, maxAge, and limit unexplained, leaving an agent guessing about valid values.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Rank') and resource ('realistic hiring targets'). It lists multiple criteria that distinguish it as an analysis/ranking tool, which differentiates it from sibling tools like pws_get_worker or pws_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?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, but the name and the verb 'Rank' imply a use case of evaluating hiring targets. There is no mention of exclusions or alternatives, so guidance is only implied.

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