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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds the upstream endpoint (GET /c/{company_id}/interview/results) and the shape of what comes back conceptually, but says nothing about pagination semantics, defaults, or volume/rate behavior beyond what the schema already states.

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 dense sentence front-loads the resource and its disambiguation, followed by a compact endpoint reference. Nothing is wasted, though the em-dash aside and trailing endpoint citation make it slightly denser than an ideal two-beat structure.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry some of the return-value burden, and it does sketch the two result types (evaluations with rating + note, questionnaire scorecards). For a 6-param, zero-required read tool this is largely sufficient, with only return format/pagination detail left unstated.

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 every parameter (kind, page, limit, scope, admin_ids, candidate_id) is already documented with defaults and enums in the schema. The description only loosely gestures at the candidate and reviewer filters, adding no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is correct.

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 (List) plus resource (interview results/evaluations) with an in-line gloss of what an evaluation actually contains (rating + note) and that questionnaire scorecards are included. It distinguishes itself implicitly from recruitee_list_interview_events by naming results rather than events, but it does not explicitly contrast with any sibling, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

"Optionally for one candidate or by selected reviewers" hints at the two filtering modes, which maps loosely to candidate_id and admin_ids. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g. list_interview_events), so usage is only implied.

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