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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description only needs to add behavioral context. It does so with the cardinality insight: 'Every role has exactly one screening, so filtering by role id returns at most one,' which tells the agent results are bounded and not a paged fan-out in that case. It does not discuss default page size behavior or workspace resolution failures, but the essentials are covered.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource definition, then the cardinality rule, then the workflow action. Nothing is redundant with the title or 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers purpose, cardinality, and the next-step workflow. Minor gaps remain around pagination expectations and what an empty result means, but nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 all five parameters are already documented (limit/offset defaults, status enum, workspaceId accepting 'personal'). The description adds meaning only for roleId, via the one-screening-per-role note; it says nothing extra about status filtering, pagination, or workspaceId beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('List screenings (candidate screening lists)'), which importantly maps the tool's opaque name 'list_batches' onto the domain concept 'screenings'. It also distinguishes itself from the detail sibling by naming the 'screening detail tool' as the follow-up, so an agent can pick it without opening a 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?

Gives an explicit use case: 'Use this to resolve a screening name to its id before calling the screening detail tool.' That is a concrete workflow trigger. It stops short of stating when not to use it (e.g., when the id is already known and get_batch should be called directly).

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