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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the ordering ('newest first') and that job_id takes a 'job_ public display id', which is useful beyond the schema. 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?

The description is three sentences with no filler, front-loading the core verb and resource. Every sentence adds either purpose, parameter semantics, or usage guidance, and it is appropriately sized for the tool.

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?

The description covers the primary use case and key parameter, but it does not mention pagination behavior (starting_after) or the purpose of request_id. With no output schema, the description could more fully explain the list's paging contract, though annotations cover the read/safety aspects.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains job_id's behavior and format, but leaves limit, starting_after, and request_id unexplained, particularly the pagination semantics of starting_after. Given 4 parameters and only one explained, the compensation is incomplete.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('List published interview plans') and adds ordering ('newest first'). It implicitly distinguishes from sibling draft tools by specifying 'published', and provides a concrete use case for locating an interview plan ID from a job ID.

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 a clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use this to find an interview plan id when you only hold a job id.' It also explains the optional job_id filtering, but it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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