Kooperativa: company headcount by seniority

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It usefully warns that counts reflect only Kooperativa's indexed profiles, not the company's real total headcount. However, it does not mention data freshness, error behavior for unknown companies, or any other operational caveats.

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 concise sentences provide the core behavior, the seniority levels, the use cases, and the important limitation. There is no redundancy or filler, and the main purpose is 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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the expected breakdown and the indexed-profiles caveat. It is mostly complete, though it could mention how to interpret missing or blank seniority categories.

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?

There is only one parameter, company_id, and its schema description already covers it as a numeric company ID. The tool description adds no further parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given 100% schema description coverage.

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 a specific resource (company headcount by seniority) and the exact output (breakdown by c-level, vp, director, manager, individual). It also distinguishes this tool from a real total-headcount metric by clarifying it uses Kooperativa's indexed profiles, which separates it from sibling company tools.

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 explicitly names use cases: org intelligence and account qualification. It does not compare against alternatives like kooperativa_company_current_employees, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to decide when this breakdown is relevant.

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