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

Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the agent knows this is a safe, side-effect-free planning operation. The description adds that the output is a plan with three named components, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about prerequisites or data sourcing.

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 naming the resource and then listing its parts; no filler. The colon-list structure is a bit terse but every clause 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?

With no output schema, the description reasonably compensates by naming the three deliverables the plan returns, and both inputs are fully documented in the schema. It is largely complete for a plan-generation tool, though it omits any indication of scope limits or the data the plan draws on.

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 two well-described string parameters, so the schema already carries parameter meaning and the baseline is 3. The description does not reference the parameters at all, so it adds no syntax or format detail beyond 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 resource (a reference-check plan) and enumerates its three concrete deliverables: referee verification, a call script, and a risk register. It is distinctly different from siblings like build_interview_kit or score_interview_notes, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance; the phrase 'for an engineering finalist' hints at the hiring stage but reads as a description of the output rather than a routing condition. No alternative tools are named for adjacent needs.

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