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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, non-destructive, non-open-world). The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: field availability is conditional – the memo appears once completed and the raw transcript only while no memo exists, and inviteUrl is only meaningful for interviews awaiting a guest. These conditional-return rules are not in the schema or annotations.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded on what the resource is, with the conditional field rules trailing. Every clause carries information about returned content, though the sentence is long enough to require close reading.

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 no output schema, the description correctly carries the burden of describing return values and does so in detail, including the memo-vs-transcript conditionality. Missing only pagination/ordering and workspace scoping behavior, which are minor for a read tool.

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% – workspace is documented in the schema, studyId is not. The description implies studyId scoping ('The study's...') but adds no format or constraint detail for either parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the partial schema 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?

The description clearly identifies the resource as a study's one-on-one interviews and enumerates the returned fields (guest, status, focus, memo, inviteUrl). The list verb is implied by the tool name rather than stated, and there's no explicit contrast with prism_interviews_create, but a reader grasps what it does immediately.

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 only implied: you call this to read a study's interviews. There is no statement of when to prefer it over prism_studies_get, prism_studies_results, or prism_interviews_create, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given. Adequate but with a clear guidance gap.

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