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

The description adds meaningful behavior beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: sensitive auth fields are never returned, the business ID is returned unmasked, results are scoped to the current team, and results are newest first. This helps the agent understand privacy guarantees and naming semantics without assuming from the schema.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core action and scope, then states the privacy guarantee, and closes with actionable routing to sibling tools.

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?

With a rich schema, full schema parameter coverage, an output schema, and annotations declaring read-only non-destructive behavior, the description still adds crucial context about current-team scope, ordering, sensitive-field filtering, and the returned ID's role in get/update operations. Nothing essential 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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and each parameter (limit, search, status) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 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 names a specific verb and resource ('List the examinees'), specifies the scope ('of the current team'), and gives the ordering ('newest first'). It further clarifies the domain by noting examinees are also called respondents, and distinguishes itself from get_examinee by stating the list returns an unmasked examineeId used by that tool.

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 directs the agent: 'Use get_examinee for one examinee's full detail including customData.' It also explains that the returned examineeId is what get_examinee / update_examinee take, making the retrieval-and-update workflow clear. This is strong routing guidance relative to siblings.

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