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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: newest-first ordering, exclusion of archived records, the default/max limits, and the reassuring 'Empty list is a normal result' — a real anti-misinterpretation cue.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then defaults, then the archived mode and the empty-list caveat. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 not be enumerated, yet the description still summarizes item contents (score, role, feedback, weak topics) for scanability. Ordering, filtering, limits and empty-result semantics are all present — nothing an agent needs 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 coverage is reported as 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it restates the limit default (5) and cap (20) and explains what archived=true actually selects. The added note that archived mode is required to obtain a deletable id is meaning the schema does not provide.

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+resource ('List the user's completed mock interviews') plus ordering scope ('newest first'), which separates it from archive_interview and delete_interview at a glance. No ambiguity about what is returned.

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?

Explicitly gives the condition that switches modes ('pass archived=true to list the archive instead') and cross-references the sibling that consumes the result ('the only way to find the id delete_interview needs'). The agent knows both when to call it and why.

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