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

Adds behavior the annotations don't convey: it takes minutes (latency), and results should be presented with Askli's small-sample caveats. Annotations already flag it as non-read-only and non-idempotent, so the description usefully fills in the operational details beyond the safety profile.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, gating condition, runtime expectation, and result-handling guidance. The core purpose is front-loaded with no waste.

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 no output schema, the description covers runtime ('a few minutes') and how to present results, which is important for an async-feeling analysis trigger. It does not address failure modes (e.g., interviews not yet finished) or whether re-running is safe, leaving minor gaps.

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 100% for the single studyId parameter, so the schema already documents it fully. The description adds no additional parameter meaning. 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?

States a specific verb (analyze) and resource (finished interviews) and contrasts the behavior with the default mechanism (waiting for Askli's next checkpoint). An agent can distinguish this from the study/plan/findings siblings, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

'Only run this if the user asks' gives an explicit gating condition, and 'instead of waiting for Askli's next checkpoint' frames the alternative path. No sibling tool is named as an alternative, but the when/when-not is clear.

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