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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail beyond that: the sort order, a fixed page size of 50, and the explicit negative constraint that meeting links are omitted from results.

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 sentences, zero filler, and the most important facts (what it lists, ordering, page size) arrive first. The filter and the exclusion note follow in the order an agent would need them.

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 needn't be expanded, and the description still flags the one surprising omission (no meeting links). With only two params and both effectively addressed, the only remaining gap is pagination edge behavior.

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% and the schema supplies neither descriptions nor an enum, so the description must compensate. It does so for `booking_kind` by enumerating the two accepted values and glossing each, and '50 per page' indirectly explains `page`, though the default and out-of-range behavior remain undocumented.

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?

Names a specific resource (scheduled interviews), a scope ('across all jobs'), and an ordering ('soonest first'), which lets an agent distinguish it from single-record tools like get_candidate or list_follow_up_times. It stops short of explicitly naming which sibling to use instead for other views.

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?

The description implies usage by stating scope and by explaining how `booking_kind` narrows the result, giving the agent a reason to pick the filter. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or which sibling covers the excluded cases (e.g. follow-up availability vs. follow-up interviews).

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