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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's added value is the output shape — scorecard per interviewer plus debrief with evidence, disagreements and bias flags — and the explicit statement that the tool does not render the hiring decision. That is meaningful beyond the annotations, though it says nothing about note-quality failure modes or length limits.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place: the first front-loads the transformation and the deliverables, the second states the decision boundary. No filler or restatement of the title.

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 does the work of describing returns (scorecard per interviewer, debrief memo with evidence, disagreements, bias flags), which is the key gap it needed to fill. Minor omission: zero required parameters, so the agent gets no guidance on what happens if notes or must_haves are absent.

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 both parameters (notes, must_haves) are already documented in the schema and the baseline is 3. The description echoes the 'per interviewer' labeling convention but adds no format, size, or handling guidance beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb ('turn raw interview notes into') plus two concrete deliverables: an anchored scorecard per interviewer and a debrief memo with evidence, disagreements and bias flags. This clearly separates it from siblings like build_role_scorecard (constructs a scorecard from role inputs) and check_hiring_fit (evaluates fit), so an agent can route without opening schemas.

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 described inputs (raw interviewer notes plus must-haves), and 'You make the decision' signals the human-in-the-loop boundary rather than when to pick this tool. It never names a precursor like build_role_scorecard or an alternative such as check_hiring_fit, so the agent must infer sequencing and selection.

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