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

Beyond the readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description discloses that sensitive auth fields are never returned, the examineeId is returned unmasked, and the listing is scoped to the current team. These details give an agent a clear expectation of the data and 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 concise and front-loaded: two sentences that first state the core purpose, then provide supplemental context (sensitive fields, examineeId unmasking, pointer to get_examinee). Every sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy.

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 an output schema present, the description covers the essential operational context: team scope, ordering, sensitive field omission, and the relationship to get_examinee. Nothing an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly 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?

The input schema already documents all three parameters with descriptions (limit with default/max, search as fuzzy match, status as enum). The description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the verb (list), the resource (examinees/respondents), the scope (current team), and the ordering (newest first). It explicitly distinguishes from get_examinee by naming the alternative for full detail, so an agent can select the right tool without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use get_examinee for one examinee's full detail including customData.' It also notes that the examineeId is what get_examinee/update_examinee take, which helps an agent decide between listing and retrieving a single record.

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