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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds useful context about the return payload structure (interview quality scores, communication assessment, recommendations) and workflow prerequisites, but does not disclose error states, rate limits, or polling behavior.

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 appropriately front-loaded with purpose and prerequisites, but the final sentence 'Free.' is ambiguous (unclear if referring to cost, freedom, or text type) and wastes space without adding clear value, slightly undermining the otherwise efficient structure.

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 read operation with strong annotations, the description adequately compensates for the missing output schema by detailing what the results contain and provides the critical workflow prerequisite (checking careerproof_task_status) necessary for correct invocation.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the session_id parameter is already well-documented. The description reinforces the parameter's origin by referencing atlas_start_dialogue_assessment but does not add significant semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, warranting the baseline score.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('assessment results for a dialogue session'), and distinguishes from siblings like atlas_get_analysis or atlas_get_candidate by specifying the dialogue/interview context and return contents (interview quality scores, communication assessment, and recommendations).

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 provides explicit workflow guidance with 'Confirm assessment is completed via careerproof_task_status first,' indicating when to use the tool (only after completion). It also clarifies the tool chain by referencing atlas_start_dialogue_assessment as the source for session_id.

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