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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine business context beyond the annotations: reasons split into standard vs workspace-specific, and the requirement that rejected/withdrawn outcomes need a reason while hired does not. It omits return shape/pagination, but the added value is real.

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, and the core scope (standard + workspace reasons) is front-loaded ahead of the conditional requirement.

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 read-only lookup with no output schema and one schema-documented parameter, the description supplies the key rules needed to call it. It stops short of explaining how the outcome parameter changes the returned list, but nothing critical 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?

workspaceId is documented in the schema ('personal' or a list_workspaces id). The outcome param has an enum but no schema description; the description adds the crucial semantic that rejected/withdrawn require a reason and hired does not, implying outcome filters the returned set. Baseline 3 is appropriate at 50% 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 a specific verb 'List' and resource 'reasons that can be recorded with a hiring outcome', plus the scope 'standard reasons plus the selected workspace's own'. An agent can identify what it returns without opening the schema. Slight deduction for not naming a sibling lookup/recording counterpart.

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?

Implicitly the tool is a prerequisite lookup for record_hiring_outcome, and the description conveys the rule that rejected/withdrawn need a reason while hired does not. However, it never explicitly names record_hiring_outcome as the consumer or states when-not to use it, leaving guidance implied.

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