compute_hiring_demand

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It does not mention side effects, permissions, or data requirements. While it is likely a pure computation, the lack of explicit disclosure limits transparency.

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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary detail. It is concise and front-loaded.

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 description lacks details about the computation formula, output interpretation, edge cases, and dependencies. The hint about registries is vague, and the absence of an output schema leaves the user uncertain about what the score represents.

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?

The description adds meaning by explaining that priority is a weight and that priorities should come from registries/hiring-sources. It does not clarify the semantics of 'domain' or 'hits', but partially enhances the schema.

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 computes a hiring_demand_score from priority-weighted ATS hit counts, and specifies the output range (0-10). It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous given the name and description.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_search_velocity or compute_urgency_composite. The hint about using registries/hiring-sources for priorities is a data-sourcing note, not a usage condition.

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