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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose two valuable traits: the link is unique/single-use and expires in 30 days. It is silent on permission requirements, whether the referee is emailed automatically, and whether re-nominating the same email creates a duplicate or replaces the prior link.

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?

One sentence, zero waste, with the action front-loaded and the side effect (link generation) trailing. Slightly dense for a single clause but nothing is redundant.

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 5-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description usefully covers the return value but leaves the parameters and the operational prerequisites undocumented. It is minimally adequate rather than complete.

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 0% and the description names none of the five parameters. Required fields (role_id, name, email) are inferable from their names, but 'relationship' and 'phone' are left entirely undefined — relationship in particular is ambiguous (to the candidate? to the role?).

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 (nominate) and resource (referee) scoped to a role, and even names the artifact produced: a single-use 30-day referee link. No sibling tool in the list touches referees, so an agent can place it immediately 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?

The phrase 'for a role' implies the context, but there is no guidance on when this is appropriate versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g. must own/have applied to the role), and no note on what happens if a referee is nominated twice.

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