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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the underlying endpoint (GET /c/{company_id}/disqualify_reasons) and the shape of the returned records, which is the main behavioral fact an agent needs here.

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 tight sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the use case second. The trailing endpoint reference is slightly technical but compact and arguably useful for traceability, so no real waste.

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 zero-parameter, read-only listing with no output schema, the description supplies what's needed: what it returns, what it's for, and the API path. Only minor omissions (e.g., whether the list is complete or paginated) keep it shy of a 5.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4. The description correctly doesn't waste space on parameter talk.

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 even enumerates the returned fields (id, name, position). No sibling tool covers disqualification reasons, so an agent can route to it unambiguously.

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?

Adds a contextual use case ('useful for reading why candidates were disqualified'), which implies when to reach for it. However, it names no alternatives or prerequisites (e.g., that a reason id is needed to disqualify a candidate elsewhere), so guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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