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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful workflow context: the tool produces an interview kit, requires a human yes before proceeding to update_reader_profile, and notes that fluency follows the operator across companies. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 sentences, each earning its place: what the kit is, when to use it, and what to do after. The purpose is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition.

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 tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what comes back (domain candidates and a protocol), when to use it, and the next step. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters thoroughly, including companyId's membership requirement and member_name's default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema's full coverage.

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 clearly identifies a specific resource—a fluency INTERVIEW kit with domain candidates and a protocol—and states its purpose: helping a host CoS gauge how FO should talk to an operator. It distinguishes itself from the follow-up update_reader_profile, though it does not explicitly differentiate from the similar get_reader_profile sibling.

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 gives explicit trigger conditions: onboarding, partner MCP connect, or when speech feels too dumbed-down or too jargony. It also provides a follow-up workflow by telling the agent to call update_reader_profile after human approval, but it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool.

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