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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without description help. The description adds real value by disclosing that results are summary-level records with status and completion times, but says nothing about pagination, result volume, or ordering for a list operation.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the capability, then the query intents, then the scope limit. No filler, though the example-questions sentence is slightly padding relative to the rest.

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 one required param fully documented and no output schema, the description does the needed work by saying the return is summaries with status and completion times, and by pointing to the sibling for transcripts. Only list-specific behavior (pagination, ordering, typical result size) is unaddressed.

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% and the single researchId param is already documented as coming from list_researches, so the schema carries the load. The description adds no further meaning about the identifier or what happens with an unknown ID; baseline 3 applies.

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 verb and resource ('Lists the interviews Frank has conducted for one research study') plus what the payload contains (status and completion times). It also distinguishes itself from the closest sibling by noting it returns summaries only and that get_interview holds the content.

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?

Gives concrete triggering questions ('who has been interviewed for this study', 'how many interviews are done') and explicitly routes the agent to get_interview when actual interview content is needed. Both the use case and the alternative are stated, not inferred.

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