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

Goes well beyond annotations: 180-day retention and deletion of saved progress, what exactly is persisted (question id, checks met, word count) versus the answer text only under keep_answer_text, encryption with the account key, English translation for non-English answers, and removal of answers from the session. The auth/pass requirement is also disclosed, which annotations cannot express.

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?

Front-loaded with the outcome (scorecard contents) before the persistence rules, and every clause carries distinct information. It is dense and runs long as a single flowing block, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is essentially no filler.

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, and the description compensates by describing exactly what the scorecard contains and what persistence side effects occur. Auth requirements, idempotent re-finish behavior, and answer deletion are all covered, leaving no material gap for an agent to call it correctly.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real meaning: save_progress false saves 'nothing' and keep_answer_text controls whether text is stored encrypted with the account key, with a translation note for non-English answers. This explains consequences of the flags rather than restating their types.

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 ('Ends a mock interview') and immediately names what it returns — the scorecard with competency outcomes and three next-practice questions with ids. This clearly complements start_mock_interview and cannot be confused with siblings like check_interview_answer.

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 end-of-session context is clear and the description states the prerequisite (sign-in plus an Interview Coach Pass). It also tells the agent that re-finishing the same session is safe and returns the same scorecard, though it never explicitly contrasts with siblings such as check_interview_answer or save_practice.

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