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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so the meaningful addition is the trust boundary: question text and name are wrapped in `untrusted` while the employer's answer is not. That is a real behavioral detail an agent cannot get from 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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; the resource definition comes first, then status, then the trust note. Dense but readable.

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 shape need not be spelled out, and the trust-boundary note covers the highest-risk aspect of the payload. What is missing is pagination behavior for limit/offset and any statement of scope (there is no job parameter despite the 'job offer' framing).

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 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning; it explains the `status` values (open = not answered yet, or answered), which the bare string default does not. `limit` and `offset` are left entirely to inference, so it only partly compensates.

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 the resource precisely: candidate questions about a job offer, with the status axis (open/answered) clarifying what is returned. It distinguishes itself from answer_candidate_question, though the listing verb itself is only implied by the tool name rather than the text.

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?

"answer_candidate_question replies to an open one" implicitly sketches the workflow (list open ones, then answer), which is useful routing. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus other listing tools, nor any exclusion or prerequisite.

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