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

readOnlyHint=true already signals a safe read, and the description adds valuable return-content detail — that results come back as evaluations with rating+note and as questionnaire scorecards — which matters because there is no output schema. It does not discuss pagination behavior despite exposing page/limit.

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?

A single tight sentence that front-loads the verb and resource before the optional filters, with no filler. Nothing restates the tool name or wastes tokens.

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 read-only list tool with fully documented parameters, the description covers the main ambiguity — what data is returned — since there is no output schema. Only minor gaps remain (pagination interplay between page and limit, ordering of results).

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description loosely maps the 'kind' concept to its two result types and 'selected reviewers' to admin_ids, adding slight meaning but no syntax, defaults beyond what the schema already gives.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List interview results') with the two result types enumerated (evaluations with rating+note, questionnaire scorecards) and the filtering scope stated. No sibling tool covers interview evaluations, and the API endpoint anchors the meaning 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?

Conveys the optional filters ('for one candidate or by selected reviewers') so the agent knows when to narrow the call, but gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternative tools. Usage is implied by the filter phrasing rather than stated.

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