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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the 'public id' constraint, which is useful, but does not mention return format, potential errors, or any side effects beyond what annotations imply. It adds modest value without contradicting 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 a single, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and includes the key identifier detail. It is appropriately minimal for the tool's simplicity.

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 simple read tool with annotations covering safety and idempotency, the description is mostly adequate. However, it does not describe the return value (the interview plan structure), and the optional request_id is left unexplained. Given the absence of an output schema, a bit more detail would improve completeness, but it's not severely lacking.

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 that interview_plan_id is a 'public id', giving that parameter meaning, but entirely omits request_id. The description does not describe parameter formats, constraints, or relationships, leaving a significant gap for the optional parameter.

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 ('Read') and resource ('interview plan'), and specifies the lookup mechanism ('by public id'). This clearly distinguishes it from list-type siblings and other plan-related tools, though it doesn't explicitly mention the 'published' aspect from the title. The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like interview_plans_list or interview_plan_drafts_read. Usage is only implied by the verb 'read' and the resource name. No conditions, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions are provided.

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