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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read. The description adds that the reasons are company-configured and names the underlying endpoint (GET /c/{company_id}/disqualify_reasons), which is mild extra context but discloses nothing about pagination, ordering, or auth beyond what annotations imply.

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, front-loaded with the purpose before the use case and endpoint. The middle sentence ('Useful for reading why candidates were disqualified') partially restates the first, so it is efficient but not maximally tight.

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 usefully names the returned fields (id, name, position), which compensates well. For a zero-param read-only list tool this is nearly complete; only ordering/pagination behavior is unaddressed.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantic burden; baseline is 4. The description helpfully clarifies that the result set is the company's preconfigured reasons, which is the only 'parameter-like' scoping information relevant here.

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 ('List the company's configured disqualification reasons') and enumerates the returned fields (id, name, position). No sibling tool covers disqualification reasons, so it is unambiguously distinguishable from the other list_* tools.

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?

Says it is 'useful for reading why candidates were disqualified,' which implies a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives or any prerequisites. Adequate but leaves routing to inference.

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