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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds ordering behavior ('newest first') and job_id narrowing, which is useful context beyond annotations. No contradiction with annotations.

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 short sentences with the core action and ordering front-loaded. Every sentence adds value: list + order, optional filter, and when to use. No fluff or redundancy.

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?

Purpose and safety are clear thanks to annotations and description, but with no output schema and no mention of pagination parameters (limit, starting_after), an agent may not know response shape or how to paginate. Some completeness is missing for a list operation.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains job_id (taking a job_ public display id); limit, starting_after, and request_id are left undocumented Mick. For a list tool, pagination parameters are important for correct invocation, so the description insufficiently covers meaning.

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 and resource: 'List interview-plan drafts' with ordering 'newest first'. Clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like interview_plans_list (published plans) and interview_plan_drafts_read, and adds a concrete use case (finding an ipd_ draft id after an interrupted builder session).

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?

Provides a clear context: use after an interrupted builder session to recover a draft id. Does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use, but the scenario and filtering option give sufficient guidance for typical list usage.

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