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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, yet the description says the tool will 'stage an incoming recruiter pitch' and the desk_key parameter description states it 'saves evaluation to your scoreboard' — both describe persistent state mutation. A read-only annotation cannot coexist with a documented write side effect, so the description contradicts the 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 front-loaded sentence that opens with 'Use this to' and packs the two modes without filler. It is tight, though the dual-mode phrasing slightly blurs what one call actually accomplishes.

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 an output schema present and full schema coverage, the description needn't explain return values, but for a tool offering an interactive-form mode plus an evaluation/staging mode it says nothing about prerequisites, the effect of desk_key, or what 'staging' produces — gaps that matter given the annotation conflict.

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 every parameter (file, sender, channel, message, desk_key, priority) is already documented in the schema, and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names specific verbs (open form, evaluate, stage) and a specific resource (inbound recruiter pitch), so the agent knows what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from the sibling score_message, which also operates on messages, leaving some ambiguity about which to pick.

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?

'Use this to open the interactive inbound pitch intake form... or evaluate and stage an incoming recruiter pitch' implies the triggering context (an inbound pitch exists) but gives no explicit when-not guidance and never names an alternative such as score_message, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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