Company Hiring Signals: Job Openings & Hiring Intent by Company

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

Annotations already mark this read-only/open-world, but the description goes well past them: per-company price ($0.003), the nuance that below-threshold companies are filtered out unbilled, that companies with no public board come back free with a status, per-call spend cap via run_max_charge_usd, and typical 5-15s vs multi-minute runtimes with a timeout remediation path. The subtle billing warning that raising maxCompanies higher than run_max_items can bill more than is returned is exactly the kind of hazard an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Purpose, usage, exclusions, parameters, and operations are front-loaded in a logical order with no filler sentences. The one cost is the 21-field return enumeration, which is long but defensible given there is no output schema; a compact grouped phrasing would read better.

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 an 8-parameter, open-world, paid actor tool with no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs before calling: cost model, caps, latency, timeout behavior, input ambiguity, non-obvious parameter interactions, and the return shape. Nothing material is missing.

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 100%, yet the description still adds decision-relevant meaning: links are exact while bare names "can match the wrong board," checkWebsite trades accuracy for speed, minOpenJobs filters unbilled, and — most importantly — titleKeywords only count matches and do not filter results. It also explains that run_max_items fills maxCompanies when unset, which materially changes cost interpretation beyond the schema text.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ("Measure hiring intent per company from its public job board") and enumerates the concrete outputs (open jobs, new jobs 7/30d, leadership openings, 0-100 score, hot/warm/cold signal). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the two closest siblings, company_website_enricher (tech stack/contacts) and company_team_finder (current staff), framing itself as a forward-looking buying/growth signal instead.

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?

States exactly when to reach for it ("sales triggers, recruiting leads or competitor hiring watch for a known list of companies") and exactly when not to ("Do not use to discover companies from scratch" or "for individual job search"), naming local_business_leads and federal_contract_finder as the discovery alternatives. Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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