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

Adds critical context beyond annotations: cost ('1 credit'), synchronous execution, and output structure ('Returns a follow-up question with probing rationale'). Annotations cover safety profile (not read-only, not destructive), so description appropriately supplements with operational details rather than repeating safety flags.

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?

Four dense sentences: purpose/output, workflow instruction, and behavioral requirements. Each sentence earns its place with zero redundancy or filler. Front-loaded with the core action.

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?

Given no output schema, description adequately explains return values ('follow-up question with probing rationale'). Covers credit cost and required parameters. Only gap is lack of explanation for pressure_level enum behavior, which would complete the picture.

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 80% schema coverage, baseline is 3. Description adds workflow context linking original_question and candidate_answer to atlas_generate_interview output, which is valuable. However, it fails to document the pressure_level parameter (undocumented in schema), leaving a gap in semantic 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?

States specific action (Generate a follow-up question), resource (interview question), and scope (based on candidate's answer). Clearly distinguishes from siblings by mentioning it returns a 'follow-up question with probing rationale' and is used 'after atlas_generate_interview'.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use after atlas_generate_interview'), what parameters to pass from that prior tool's output ('pass the original_question from that tool's output'), and notes execution model ('Synchronous').

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