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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-annotated behavior: the exact field set returned and an explicit exclusion list (contact details, CV files, rates), which prevents the agent from expecting PII or compensation data. No auth or rate-limit context, but that is not needed for a simple read.

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 scope statement leads and the returned-field inventory follows, so the most important information is front-loaded.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the enumeration of returned fields effectively substitutes for a return-value spec, and the exclusion clause closes the main expectation gap. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly 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 0%, so the description carries the burden for role_id and application_id. 'One applicant on one of your roles' does imply the two-part key (a role plus that applicant's application to it), which is real semantic value, but it gives no format, ID source, or distinguishing detail for either parameter.

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 verb ('Summarises') and a precisely scoped resource ('one applicant on one of your roles'), then enumerates the exact contents returned (stage history, source, headline, skills, experience, location, test/interview status, team notes). This clearly separates it from list_applicants (plural listing) and get_talent_profile (global talent, not role-scoped) without the agent needing 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?

Usage is only implied: the scoping to a single role/application tells the agent this is a per-application drill-down rather than a search. The note that contact details, CV files and rates 'stay in the portal' draws a data boundary but names no sibling tool or alternative, so the agent gets no explicit when-to-use/when-not routing.

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