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

Annotations already declare this a safe, closed read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description's job is to add context. It does: sensitive auth fields are never returned, the examineeId business ID is returned unmasked, and results are newest first — details an agent cannot get from the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with scope and ordering, then field-safety notes, then routing. The parenthetical gloss 'also called respondents, the people who answer the quizzes' is slightly heavier than needed but earns its place for term matching.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. For a two-optional-parameter list tool, the description covers scope, ordering, field masking, the identifier format, and the correct alternative — everything an agent needs 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 description coverage is 100%, so limit (default 20, max 100) and search (fuzzy match by email or name) are already fully documented. The description adds no further parameter meaning, which is acceptable given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 ('List the examinees'), gives the scope ('of the current team'), the ordering ('newest first'), and synonyms so the agent can match user phrasing. It explicitly distinguishes itself from get_examinee, which returns one examinee's full 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 last sentence gives a clear alternative and the condition selecting it: use get_examinee when one examinee's full detail including customData is needed. It does not spell out when-not to use this tool (e.g., no filtering by status or form), so guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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