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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return contents (candidates, deadlines, submissions, scores), which is valuable since there is no output schema, but it says nothing about read-only semantics, permissions, or whether the deprecated api_key affects access.

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?

A single compact sentence with no padding, and the lookup modes are front-loaded. The one weakness is that it reads as a fragment rather than a complete instruction, but nothing is wasted.

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 parameterless-required read tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately previews the returned data but omits behavioral context (read-only nature, auth expectations for the deprecated key). It is minimally sufficient rather than complete.

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 description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents tryout_id ('The tryout.'), job_id ('Or: the job whose tryout to read.'), and the deprecated api_key. The description's 'by id, or on a job' restates the same dual-lookup logic without adding syntax or format detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the resource (a tryout) and enumerates its payload — candidates, deadlines, submissions, Spec Referee scores — which makes the read purpose clear and distinguishable from the mutating siblings tryouts_create and tryouts_submit. However, it is phrased as a noun fragment with no explicit verb ('retrieves/returns'), leaving the action implied by the name rather than stated.

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 'by id, or the tryout on a job' phrasing implies the two lookup modes (tryout_id vs job_id), which is useful routing guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to alternatives such as jobs_get for job-level data.

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