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

Adds behavior beyond the annotations: a quality check can bounce back with 'needs_more questions', otherwise the profile is published in about a minute. This aligns with destructiveHint=true and openWorldHint=false. The one gap is that it never states finishing is irreversible / the interview is locked; the destructive consequence is only implied by 'goes live'.

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, no filler: the invocation condition comes first, the outcome branches second. Every clause carries information an agent needs to decide whether to call.

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 carries the burden of explaining results, and it does describe both outcome branches and latency. It could still say what the returned status values mean for the next step and whether a retry after 'needs_more questions' is expected, but nothing essential is missing.

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% (wait_s semantics and 202/timeout behavior, plus the idempotency-key contract are fully documented in the schema). The description adds nothing about either parameter, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 verb 'Finish' plus the trigger conditions make it clear this terminates an interview flow, and the sibling 'interview_answer' is implicitly contrasted by 'ready_to_finish or after 5+ answers'. It does not explicitly name or distinguish itself from interview_answer / interview_status, so it stays at 4 rather than 5.

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 concrete preconditions for calling it ('when the form is ready_to_finish or after 5+ answers'), which is real when-to-use guidance an agent can check against state. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what happens if called prematurely, so no exclusion guidance.

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