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

Annotations already cover read-only safety, so the description adds real value beyond them: it discloses the auth requirement ('Requires OAuth or a scoped token'), a hard result cap of ten items, and the important domain caveat that a prepared set is not evidence an interview occurred. What's missing is whether results are ordered newest-first or what an empty result means.

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 that each carry distinct information: scope and limit, a semantic warning, and an auth prerequisite. The scoping detail is front-loaded and nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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 two-parameter read tool with annotations and no output schema, the description covers scope, result cap, auth, and a key interpretation caveat. It could say more about what fields each set contains or how ordering works, but nothing critical to calling it correctly is absent.

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 coverage is 50% – workspaceId is documented in the schema while candidateId has only a format constraint. The phrase 'for this candidate application' adds some meaning to candidateId, but the description doesn't clarify its UUID form or note that workspaceId accepts the literal 'personal'. 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 ... prepared sets') scoped to a candidate application and bounded to ten most recent items. It does not name the related siblings get_saved_interview_questions or prepare_interview_questions, so the differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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 by 'for this candidate application' and the caveat that a set does not prove an interview happened, which tells the agent not to treat results as interview evidence. However, there is no explicit statement of when to pick this over get_saved_interview_questions or when to first call prepare_interview_questions.

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