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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile, so the description's added value is the default scope disclosure: whole-company upcoming events unless narrowed. That is a genuine behavioral trait affecting what the agent receives, not a restatement of the annotations. It does not touch on pagination or rate/auth behavior, so a 4 rather than a 5.

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 plus an endpoint reference; the resource and returned fields come first, then the default and narrowing behavior. Every clause earns its place with no 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 nine-parameter, zero-required filter tool with no output schema, the description covers the resource, the returned fields, the default scope, and the narrowing dimensions — enough for an agent to call it correctly. Minor gaps (timezone/date-range coupling, interaction of page/limit) are handled by the schema, but the description could have surfaced them.

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%, and the schema already states the 'default all' scope and 'default upcoming' status, so the description's default statements largely repeat structured data. The hint about narrowing by candidate/date range/interviewer loosely maps to candidate_id, start_date/end_date, and admin_ids but adds no syntax or format detail (e.g., timezone interaction with date range). Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List scheduled interview events') and then enumerates the returned fields (candidate_id, offer_id, stage_id, start time, duration, location, attendees), which pins down exactly what data an agent will get. It even cites the underlying endpoint, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool does versus the candidate/offer/task tools in the sibling list.

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?

'Defaults to upcoming events for the whole company; narrow by candidate, date range or interviewer' tells the agent the default behavior and the axes it can filter on, which is actionable context. It stops short of naming when NOT to use this tool or pointing to an alternative for past/other interview data, so it falls just below the explicit when/when-not bar.

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