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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description focuses on added context: the 100-candidate cap, that only one action applies per call, and the crucial semantic distinction that a screening gate is not a hiring rejection. It does not cover partial-failure behavior on a batch, whether existing reviews/ratings are overwritten, or reversibility.

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 sentences, zero waste: the capability and its scope come first, then the boundary condition with the alternative tool. Nothing is padded or repeated from the schema.

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 destructive, no-output-schema, 5-parameter batch mutation with 20% schema coverage, the description covers the essential semantics but omits operational details an agent would want: partial success handling, what a gate does to downstream state, and permission requirements.

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 only 20% (only workspaceId is documented), so the description has to carry weight. It does map action to 'set_rating or reject' and candidateIds to 'up to 100', but says nothing about batchId, nor about rating being required when action=set_rating, leaving two required/enum params unexplained.

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 — apply one rating or screening-gate action to up to 100 candidates in one screening — and explicitly separates itself from record_hiring_outcome. It does not name the single-candidate siblings (set_candidate_rating, reject_candidate), which is the closest ambiguity an agent faces here.

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?

'This is not a hiring decision; use record_hiring_outcome to record hired, rejected or withdrawn' gives an explicit exclusion plus the alternative tool to use instead. Missing the inverse routing — when to use this bulk tool versus the single-candidate set_candidate_rating/reject_candidate — leaves one sibling choice to inference.

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