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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read-only' restates them without contradiction. It adds that the receipt is 'compact' and includes manual-review safety flags, but little else about behavior beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Single sentence, front-loaded with the outcome, and enumerates contents in a scannable list. No filler or redundant phrasing.

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 an output schema present, return values do not need elaboration. Annotations cover the safety profile, and the description names the key output categories; the only real gap is tenant_id semantics, which is minor because the parameter is optional and self-named.

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?

The input schema has one undocumented optional tenant_id (0% description coverage), and the description never mentions it. The agent must infer its meaning from the property name alone; no format, purpose, or default is supplied.

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: 'Return a compact Talent Scout readiness receipt' with enumerated contents. It distinguishes from siblings by naming concrete artifacts (pipeline version, surface mode, callable tool groups, manual-review safety flags), not just repeating the name.

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?

No guidance on when to call this versus siblings like talent_scout_daily_pipeline or talent_scout_create_packet. The description only states what it returns, not the conditions that should trigger it.

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