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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered; the description adds real value beyond that by stating the output is rule-based ('no model'), that contact details are stripped before checking, that the resume is not stored, and that an Interview Coach Pass is required. It stops short of describing failure modes or whether the open-questions list can be empty, which keeps it from a 5.

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 core action and constraints are front-loaded in a single dense paragraph with no filler sentences. It is long, but each clause (output count, competencies, open questions, determinism, privacy, auth) carries distinct information; a short lead sentence or bullet structure would make it easier to scan.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must characterize the return value, and it does: the number of stories, their STAR structure, competency labels, and the open-questions list. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering auth and privacy, an agent has enough to call this correctly; return formatting and error cases remain unspecified.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that stories draw only on the resume's own lines and figures but adds no new syntax, format, or length guidance for resume_text or role beyond what the schema states.

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 opens with a concrete verb and artifact: builds 10–15 STAR interview stories from resume text, scoped to project/program/product managers. It is unmistakably distinct in content from siblings like review_resume or prepare_interview_questions, but it never names or explicitly contrasts an alternative, which keeps it at 4 rather than 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?

Usage is only implied: the agent can infer this belongs to interview-story preparation rather than resume critique, but there is no explicit 'use this when' statement or exclusion of sibling tools. The sign-in/Interview Coach Pass requirement is a useful prerequisite but is an access condition, not usage guidance.

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