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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the main workflow: send creates an assessment and the candidate uploads a solution file; status returns status and a download link. It omits side effects, permission requirements, and any limits or caveats, so transparency is only partial.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded with the action dispatch and required parameters. It contains no filler, and the brief bilingual phrasing is reasonable for the context. Every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 dual-action tool with no output schema or annotations, the description covers the essential operations and their parameter requirements. It does not explicitly state that send returns assessmentId for later status checks, though the schema hints at it. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for a straightforward tool.

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 schema already covers all 7 parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by grouping parameters by action and indicating which are required for send versus status, which is not immediately obvious from the schema alone.

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 explicitly names both actions of the tool: sending a take-home assessment and checking its status/download link. This makes the tool's purpose concrete and distinguishes it from sibling tools like send_vacancy or message_candidate, which deal with different workflows.

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?

The description gives clear per-action usage conditions: send requires title, body, recruiterContact, while status requires assessmentId. It also mentions the candidate's file upload flow. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over sibling alternatives or when not to use it.

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