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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description's 'Creates and sends nothing' reinforces rather than duplicates in a harmful way, and it adds the meaningful workflow fact that output is editable before sending. Naming HiveRef's question writer also hints at a generated (non-deterministic) result, consistent with idempotentHint=false, though latency or cost of that generation call is never stated.

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, each carrying distinct information: what it does, what comes back and how it is used, and what side effects it does not have. Nothing is repeated and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating the return value is a list of questions. For a two-parameter read-only tool this is nearly complete; minor gaps remain around how many questions come back and whether the role title influences generation quality.

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% with only two required parameters, both documented with types and length bounds, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the mapping ('for a role from its job description') and adds no format, length, or quality guidance beyond it, making baseline 3 correct.

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 ('suggests reference-check questions'), the inputs it derives them from ('for a role from its job description'), and the generator behind it ('HiveRef's question writer'). The closing clause 'Creates and sends nothing' separates it from the write-oriented sibling send_reference_check without needing a schema lookup.

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?

'Returns a list of questions that can be edited before a check is sent' places the tool explicitly in the pre-send drafting step, which is the key when-to-use signal relative to send_reference_check. It stops short of naming that sibling or stating a when-not condition (e.g. when to use list_question_templates instead), so guidance is clear but not fully explicit.

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