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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that by disclosing the return shape and the important exclusion that transcript and report bodies are absent, plus how paging and incremental sync work — critical for a read tool with no output 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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and what it does not, then the paging/incremental mechanics. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant filler.

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 correctly shouldered the burden of describing the response fields and their exclusions, and it does. The remaining gap is that it doesn't point at the sibling tools for fetching the transcript or report it explicitly says are missing, which would complete the workflow picture.

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 every parameter is already documented, including the cursor token warning, sort defaults, and the deleted-records caveat on `updatedSince`. The description only restates the meaning of `cursor` and `updatedSince` and says nothing about status, sortBy, sortOrder, or limit, so it lands at the baseline rather than adding new semantics.

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 and resource ('List the interviews of one candidate') and immediately enumerates the returned fields (title, type, status, start time, job position, hasTranscript, hasReport). The candidate-scoped framing cleanly separates it from the sibling list_meetings and list_job_meetings tools, so an agent can pick it without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit usage context for the two non-obvious parameters: paging via `cursor` sourced from `pageInfo.nextCursor` and incremental retrieval via `updatedSince`. It also signals a handoff by noting the transcript and report are not included, though it never names the alternative tools (get_meeting_transcript / get_meeting_report) that an agent should call next.

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