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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly describes the tool as non-charging, states that it creates no request/program/candidate action/invoice/charge, and clarifies that fields like work_email and employer_name are only included in the returned template, not submitted. This is excellent transparency beyond the 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 two sentences and front-loaded with the primary action ('Returns a non-charging owner-review request template') followed by a concise list of exclusions and prerequisites. Every clause earns its place with no redundancy.

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 7-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent what is returned, what is not created, and the required preconditions before a subsequent review request can be submitted. Combined with the detailed schema, there are no significant contextual 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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already provides complete parameter semantics. The description's mention of required identity, authority, and terms acknowledgment loosely maps to parameters but adds little new information beyond emphasizing prerequisites. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action: it returns a non-charging owner-review request template for the Verified Interview Pilot only. It also clarifies what it does not do (creates no request, program, candidate action, invoice, or charge), which sharply distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_to_job or quote_product.

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 provides clear context: the tool is for the Verified Interview Pilot only and is a prerequisite step before a separate review request can be submitted. It states required conditions (employer identity, exact-role authority, acknowledgment of capped terms) but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of a 5.

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