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

Consistent with readOnlyHint=true. The description adds substantial context the annotation cannot carry: the semantics of active/published (both must be true to accept applications), that questionIds are what rule conditions reference, the configured: false return case, and that ready: false blocks publishing and indicates a validation failure. It stops short of describing pagination or the exact shape of the returned rules, but the behavioral picture is well covered.

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?

Purpose and return contents are front-loaded before the workflow guidance. Dense but largely purposeful; the closing instruction about how to phrase the ready flag for users is agent-behavior guidance that adds length without adding tool semantics.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description defines the return shape in words (configured flag, source fields, questions with ready state, rules) and explains the validation gating. For a single-parameter read tool this leaves nothing an agent needs 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?

Only one parameter (productId) at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already points to listProducts for valid IDs. The description adds no additional meaning about productId, so the baseline 3 applies even though the single-parameter surface makes the gap minor.

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 ('Get this beta project's applicant screening configuration') and then enumerates exactly what is returned: source flags and public link, thank-you copy, form questions with questionIds, and auto-review rules. That level of detail separates it cleanly from siblings like configureScreening, addScreeningQuestion, and publishScreeningForm.

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 explicit routing: use configureScreening when screening was never set up (signalled by configured: false), author questions with addScreeningQuestion while the form is not live, then publishScreeningForm, and note that a LIVE form can only be edited from the Stomio dashboard. It names alternatives and the exact conditions that select them.

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