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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it returns exact publication and question hashes, and those hashes are specifically what is needed to record an answer, establishing the read-then-record relationship.

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?

Two tight sentences with zero waste. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence carries only the workflow-relevant detail about return values. Nothing is padded.

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 output schema, the description must convey returns, and it does specify publication and question hashes. Combined with full param coverage and read-only annotations, an agent has what it needs to call the tool, though a brief hint about sequencing with the recording tool would fully close the loop.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, including the superadmin restriction on customerId. The description adds only the framing 'for a run,' which maps loosely to conversationId and adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource: fetching 'the next canonical evidence-bound calibration question for a run.' This distinguishes it implicitly from the write counterpart record_run_calibration_review, though no sibling is named. Purpose is clear without needing to open the schema.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'the next ... question' and the note about hashes 'required to record the answer' signal this is a read step preceding record_run_calibration_review. However, there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative, leaving the agent to infer the workflow.

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