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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two genuinely new behavioral facts — tenant scoping and results ordered by appearsAtSeconds ASC — but says nothing about result volume, pagination, or whether both interaction types are returned by default.

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, front-loaded with the resource and its scope, then filters, then ordering. Minor redundancy in restating the enum literals already present in the schema, but nothing is padded or buried.

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?

For a simple read-only list tool with no output schema and only three parameters, the description covers resource, scope, filters, and sort order — enough for an agent to invoke it correctly. The remaining gap is absence of any statement about result completeness or pagination.

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, and it largely does: webinarId is framed as a tenant-owned webinar, type maps to poll vs CTA offer, and timeline maps to live vs replay. The enum values themselves are restated from the schema rather than adding new depth on their semantics, keeping it below a 5.

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 (list) and a precisely-scoped resource (polls and CTA offers for a tenant-owned webinar), which usefully decodes what an 'interaction' is. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like interactions_get or interactions_find_matching, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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 explaining the two optional filters (type and timeline), which suggests it is the enumeration tool for this resource. However, it never states when to prefer this over interactions_find_matching or interactions_get, nor what happens if filters are omitted.

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