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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that, the description adds genuinely useful behavior the annotations cannot: the four possible statuses and the fact that the substantive work payload only appears after submission. It does not discuss what happens for an unknown or expired token, which is the one remaining behavioral gap.

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 sentences, no filler. The returned statuses and payload are front-loaded, and the usage trigger is placed last where it reads as a routing rule. Every clause carries information an agent would otherwise have to infer.

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 describe the return shape, and it does so concretely by listing status values and submitted-work fields. For a single-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage that is nearly sufficient; only error/pre-request behavior is left unstated, which is a modest gap rather than a blocking one.

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?

There is a single parameter at 100% schema coverage, and the schema already states 'The token request_work_sample returned'. The description restates the same provenance ('a brief sent with request_work_sample') without adding format, lifetime, or reuse details, so it neither compensates for nor extends the schema. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the work.

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 resource (the brief sent via request_work_sample) and enumerates the exact status values it can return (requested, accepted, declined, submitted), then lists the payload returned once submitted (summary, approach, rationale, media, links). The pairing with request_work_sample makes the read-vs-request split unambiguous even without opening the sibling's schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use when the user asks whether the candidate has replied.' That is a clear context cue an agent can pattern-match on. It stops short of exclusions (e.g., what to call before a request was ever sent, or how it differs from get_portfolio when the user wants general candidate material), so it is clear but not exhaustive.

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