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

Annotations already cover readOnlyHint and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is known. The description adds behavior beyond annotations: records are sorted newest first, PII such as emails and phone numbers is masked in answers, and records must be referenced by examineeId. This meaningfully enriches the agent's expectation of the tool's behavior.

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 three sentences and front-loads the primary purpose, then gives filters and guidance. It is fairly dense but avoids redundancy, with each sentence serving a distinct role. It could be trimmed slightly, but it earns its place.

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 that the tool has 6 optional parameters, a full output schema, and safe-read annotations, the description covers ordering, item composition, filter dimensions, a reference/masking subtlety, and points to the more detailed single-record tool. There is no substantial gap for an agent to call this 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 the parameters are already well defined. The description adds extra semantics by grouping since/until as a 'submitted-at range' and warning that email/phone answers return masked, reinforcing reference by examineeId. This goes beyond just restating the schema, though most parameter details remain in the schema.

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 a specific verb and resource ('List submission records (leads) of the current team, newest first') and details contained fields (examinee, answers, UTM, report result). It differentiates from siblings by naming get_record for full detail, so an agent can distinguish scope and granularity.

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 tells when to use filters, instructs to reference records by examineeId rather than masked email, and directs that single-record full detail should use get_record. This is concrete, actionable when/when-not guidance with an explicit alternative.

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