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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful return-behavior context, especially that avg_score is null when nobody scored, but it does not explain date-range behavior, aggregation scope, or the response format beyond metric names.

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?

The description front-loads the report contents and then adds compact notes on key metrics and the optional parameter. Some metric commentary is contextual rather than essential, but the overall wording is efficient.

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?

It is enough to identify the report's metrics and read-only nature, but with no output schema and 0% parameter descriptions, the definition should clarify the date parameters and expected output more. Missing usage alternatives and parameter semantics leave meaningful gaps.

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 0%; the description identifies interviewer_user_id as optional but does not explain since or until, their formats, or their intended date-range semantics. It adds meaning for only one of three parameters, leaving two undocumented.

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 names the resource (interviews) and specific metrics (held count, no-show rate, verdict spread, load per interviewer), making the report's purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling reports such as hr_funnel_report or hr_recruiter_report, so it is not a full 5.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance; usage is only implied by the metric list. The high-volume retail note on show_rate adds context but does not help an agent choose among sibling HR reports.

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