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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about the deliverable's composition (hidden rubric, follow-up conversation, seeded-bug review), though it says nothing about determinism, length limits, or how the hidden rubric is surfaced.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence opening with the purpose, followed by the differentiating detail. It is dense with comma-separated option lists, slightly more than strictly necessary, but nothing is wasted.

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?

For a read-only generative tool with no output schema and fully described parameters, the description covers the main design approaches and the expected artifacts. It leaves minor gaps on output shape and scope limits, but an agent has enough to invoke 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 coverage is 100% with three well-documented params (role, stack, details), so the schema carries the weight. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, which is the expected baseline when structured fields are complete.

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?

Specific verb+resource ("Design a coding test") with an explicit qualifier ("that still works when candidates have AI") and concrete design patterns (seeded-bug review, extend-a-codebase, paid trial). This clearly separates it from siblings like send_coding_challenge (which ships a challenge) and developer_interview_questions (which writes questions).

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?

Usage is implied by the AI-resilience framing — you reach for this when authoring a hiring assessment — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no sibling alternative named. An agent must infer that this designs rather than sends a challenge.

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