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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds a meaningful behavioral detail beyond those annotations: 'Creates no checkout or payment obligation,' which tells the agent that this tool has no side effects related to the checkout flow. This is useful context, even if partly redundant with the read-only hint.

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 short sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and resource, the second reinforces read-only status, the third adds the side-effect disclaimer. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no 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?

This is a simple, parameterless, read-only tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency. The description fully explains what the tool does, its non-mutating nature, and the absence of payment obligation. No output schema exists, so no return-value details are required.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the schema has empty properties, so the description has no parameter burden. The baseline of 4 for a zero-parameter tool applies; the description does not need to add parameter-level detail because none exist.

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 states a specific verb ('Read'), a specific resource ('current Evercraft Interview Sprint terms'), and explicitly frames the operation as read-only with no checkout or payment obligation. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling prepare_interview_sprint_checkout, which creates an obligation, and from get_interview_sprint_status, which reads status rather than terms.

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 description gives clear context that this is a safe, read-only operation and contrasts it with checkout/payment obligations. It implies when to use this tool instead of prepare_interview_sprint_checkout, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when-not-to-use conditions.

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