Kooperativa: company hiring signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does provide useful behavioral facts: ordering by join date descending, default look-back 90 days, max 365 days. However, it does not disclose response shape, pagination behavior, or whether results are limited to current employees, and there is no safety or auth information.

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 packs the core concept, ordering behavior, and key parameter constraints with no filler or repetition.

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 is adequate for a basic listing call: required company_id is in the schema, days is explained with defaults, and page/per_page have schema defaults. But it is incomplete without annotations or an output schema: no mention of auth, rate limits, result fields, or how hiring signals differ from current/past employee tools.

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 semantics for the look-back window (default 90, max 365) complementing the days parameter in the schema. company_id and days already have schema descriptions; page and per_page are undocumented in both schema and description, though their names and defaults make them fairly self-explanatory.

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 identifies the resource (people who recently joined a company) and the concept (hiring signals), and adds distinguishing details: sorted by join date descending and a configurable look-back window. It lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'get', but the meaning is unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools such as current/past employees.

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?

It states a clear use context: hiring signals indicate growth, investment, or expansion. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but an agent can infer when this tool is relevant from the stated signal rationale.

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