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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, so the bar is lower; the description nonetheless adds valuable behavior by disclosing the default filter (upcoming, whole company) that would otherwise be invisible. It stops short of describing pagination behavior, though the schema documents 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?

Three compact clauses, front-loaded with the resource and returned fields, followed by default behavior and narrowing options, then the endpoint. Every sentence earns its place with zero filler.

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, fully-schematized list tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return fields, default scoping, narrowing axes, and the underlying endpoint. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the input schema. The description restates the narrowing dimensions (candidate, date range, interviewer) and returned fields but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 (List) and resource (scheduled interview events), and enumerates the returned fields (candidate_id, offer_id, stage_id, start time, duration, location, attendees). It is the only interview-events tool among the siblings, so the resource is unambiguous.

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?

Clearly states the default scope ('upcoming events for the whole company') and the narrowing axes ('by candidate, date range or interviewer'). No sibling alternative is named, but none of the listed siblings overlaps with interview events, so no explicit exclusion is required.

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