Role Mix Over Time

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

Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It contributes the output granularity (per week) and grouping dimension (role category), but says nothing about data scope, default time range, or cardinality of the result.

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 clause with zero filler — the grouping and the time bucket both land immediately. It is arguably too terse for the tool's analytical role, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining the shape of the result, and it only partially does: it names two dimensions but not the time horizon, whether counts span all jobs or the user's jobs, or the form of the returned series. Adequate minimum but with clear gaps.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify on the input side.

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?

States a specific computation and grouping: counts of jobs grouped by role category, bucketed per week. That distinguishes it from explore_ats_over_time and explore_tailoring_lift by subject matter, but the description never names those siblings or explicitly frames the tool as an analytics/exploration query, so an agent must infer the routing from the shared 'explore_' prefix.

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 when-to-use guidance at all — no statement of what question this answers, no indication of the time window analyzed, and no mention of alternatives among the six other explore_* siblings. The noun-phrase style implies an exploratory query but leaves all selection logic to inference.

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