Get Company History

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing the 'Pro+ tier' (pricing implication) and the depth limitation: 'detailed monthly snapshots only began March 2026, so depth is currently capped by available history.' This goes beyond what annotations provide, giving a realistic expectation of data availability.

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 two sentences, both front-loaded with key information. The first sentence lists return fields concisely, and the second provides concrete use cases. No wasted words. Very efficient.

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 no output schema, the description adequately lists the main return fields (totalJobs, engineeringJobs, etc.) and explains the time series behavior and depth cap. It covers the typical questions the tool answers. Minor gaps include not specifying error conditions or pagination, but those are not critical for a simple time-series tool.

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 100%, so description cannot add much for parameter definitions. However, it provides additional context like 'Pro+ tier' and the March 2026 depth cap for the months parameter. The description also lists the return fields, which helps the agent understand the tool's output better. This extra context justifies a score above the baseline of 3.

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?

Description clearly states it returns time-series of a company's hiring profile with specific fields listed. The verb phrase 'returns time-series' and resource 'company's hiring profile' are specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_company_profile, which might also provide similar data. The examples help but do not exclude alternatives.

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 provides explicit use cases (e.g., 'how has Anthropic's hiring changed since January?' or 'is Stripe growing or shrinking?'). It gives clear context for when to use this tool. It does not state when not to use or mention alternatives, but the provided examples are helpful for an AI agent to infer appropriate usage.

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