Pipeline summary

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful context beyond that: it aggregates across all pages automatically and warns about the 60 req/min limit, which signals cost and potential throttling. It stops short of stating whether results are live or fixed snapshots, which is the one gap on a tool literally named 'snapshot'.

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, densely packed with zero filler, and the returned metrics are front-loaded before the pagination and rate-limit note. Every clause earns its place.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly takes on the job of describing the return payload by enumerating the four metrics. Combined with the pagination and rate-limit note, an agent knows what it will get and what it will cost, leaving only minor gaps such as no explicit sibling disambiguation.

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 0% for the single required parameter, so the description has to carry the burden. Saying 'one vacancy's funnel' does establish that vacancy_id selects a single vacancy and that the scope is the whole funnel, but it adds no format guidance (ID type, source, validity) beyond that implication.

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 names a specific resource (one vacancy's funnel) and enumerates exactly what the snapshot contains: candidates per stage, disqualified count, average rating, and candidates awaiting a first reply. That is far more informative than a restatement of the name, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like hiring_report or get_vacancy, which an agent might reasonably confuse it with.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The only conditional statement is a rate-limit caution, which is operational advice rather than usage routing. An agent must infer for itself when a funnel snapshot beats hiring_report or list_job_applications.

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