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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description reveals important behavior: sensitive auth fields are never returned, the business ID is unmasked, and ordering is newest first. This is meaningful context the agent cannot infer from annotations or schema alone.

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 is compact and front-loaded: it states purpose and ordering first, then field-sensitive behavior, then routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place without repetition or 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?

Given the output schema exists, all parameters are documented, and annotations cover the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: scope, ordering, sensitive-field filtering, and selection between siblings. Nothing needed for correct invocation is missing.

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?

All three parameters (limit, search, status) are already fully described in the JSON schema, including defaults, enums, and constraints. The description adds no extra parameter-level guidance, 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 uses a specific verb (list), a clear resource (examinees/respondents), and states scope (current team) and ordering (newest first). It also distinguishes itself from get_examinee by explaining the difference in scope and detail.

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 description explicitly states when to use get_examinee instead: when full detail including customData is needed. It also explains that examineeId is the value consumed by get_examinee / update_examinee, giving the agent a clear routing rule across siblings.

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