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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the kit's components ('domain candidates + "which is clearest?" protocol'), the workflow ('After human yes, call update_reader_profile'), and a behavioral trait ('fluency follows them across companies'). It does not explicitly state read-only nature, but the verb 'Get' implies it.

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 with clear structure: what, when, next steps. No wasted words.

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 read-only retrieval tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage, and post-processing. It also notes cross-company persistence, which is a useful nuance.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter-specific detail—it implies member_name is the operator but doesn't clarify how it relates to companyId beyond what the schema already says.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' followed by 'a fluency INTERVIEW kit' and describes its purpose: 'so a host CoS can gauge how FO should talk to this operator.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_reader_profile by focusing on an interview kit rather than a profile.

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?

It gives explicit triggers: 'Use when onboarding, partner MCP connect, or speech feels too dumbed-down or too jargony.' It also recommends a follow-up action: 'After human yes, call update_reader_profile.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, which prevents a 5.

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