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

Annotations only flag it as a non-read-only, idempotent, non-destructive write; the description goes much further by disclosing that the draft cannot be activated, attached to a pipeline, or sent to an applicant until the user activates it in Settings, and that AvaHR itself rejects non-compliant questions. It also prescribes exactly what to surface after the call (review_url, knockouts, knockouts_removed, review_flags), which annotations could never convey.

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?

Purpose and draft status are front-loaded in the first clause, followed by a restrictions block and then post-call instructions in execution order. The long prohibited-topic list is dense but each item is a distinct compliance constraint rather than filler.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description enumerates the response fields the agent must relay (review_url, knockouts, knockouts_removed, review_flags), and it covers the failure modes (compliance rejection, knock-outs silently altered) an agent would otherwise be blind to. For a 4-parameter creation tool that is as complete as it needs to be.

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%, so the baseline is 3, and the description earns above baseline by explaining the business consequence of knockout_answers (automatic rejection) and warning that they must be limited to lawful, requested requirements. It adds no new detail on name, category, description, or question ordering, which stays the schema's job.

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 and resource ("Create a screening questionnaire in AvaHR") and immediately pins down the lifecycle state it produces ("as an INACTIVE DRAFT"), which separates it from the sibling create_assessment_draft without the agent needing to open either schema.

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?

Gives explicit conditional guidance on the riskiest sub-feature ("add them only when the user asks for them, for genuine job requirements") plus a hard list of topics never to ask about, so the agent knows when and when not to use knock-outs. It stops short of naming alternative tools or prerequisites for the surrounding hire workflow, so routing versus create_assessment_draft is left implicit.

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