hiring_snapshot

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description does add useful scope detail (what is counted) and a data-quality caveat — salary ranges only 'where posts state them' — which is genuine behavioral context. It does not mention default month behavior or result limits, so it is solid but not rich.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that enumerates exactly the returned metrics with no filler. The 'where posts state them' qualifier earns its place by setting expectations about missing salary data.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value structure need not be explained here, and all parameters are optional with sane defaults, making invocation trivial. The one gap is that the undocumented 'top' parameter is left for the agent to guess at, but otherwise the definition is complete for its intended aggregate use.

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 67%; 'month' and 'response_format' are documented in the schema, but 'top' (integer, default 20, range 5-60) has no description anywhere, and the description never says what it truncates. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for moderate coverage is appropriate.

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 concretely what the tool returns: job post counts, work-mode and visa shares, top skills, and salary ranges for a single month. That is a specific aggregation resource an agent can recognize. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like skill_demand or hiring_threads, which likely overlap on the skills dimension.

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, no mention of when not to use it, and no reference to any of the four sibling tools. The phrase 'one month at a glance' weakly implies an aggregate-overview use case, but the agent must infer that itself.

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