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

Without annotations, the description partially compensates by noting that certain details are shown only 'when expanded access is available,' hinting at a permission-based behavior. However, it does not disclose that the operation is read-only, whether it triggers side effects, or that pagination is used. The cursor parameter is explained only in schema.

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?

The description is extremely concise—two sentences front-loading the primary action ('List interview kits') and key details. Every word is meaningful; no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description outlines what information is returned (exercises, anonymization settings, stage association) but omits details like pagination, default sorting, or the fact that cursors are used. For a selection tool with 8 parameters, the context is adequate but not fully comprehensive.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description mentions 'expanded access,' tying to the on_behalf_of_user_id parameter, adding minimal context. Otherwise, no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema are provided.

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 tool as listing interview kits, a specific resource, and mentions key data shown (exercises, anonymization settings, stage association). It is easily distinguishable from sibling list tools like list_interviews or list_job_interview_stages, though it could be more precise about the scope.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_interviews). It does not mention prerequisites, such as the need for 'expanded access' or when to use different filters like job_ids vs ids. Missing explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use directives.

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