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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the scoping detail that these are interviewers 'assigned to an interview session' but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits such as pagination, ordering, or error behavior.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action and scope directly, making it an efficient and well-structured definition.

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 tool is simple (one required param, no output schema), and the description covers the core purpose adequately. However, the missing explanation of 'request_id' and lack of return-value expectations leave gaps for an agent trying to invoke it correctly without additional context.

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% and the description provides no explanation of either parameter. 'request_id' is entirely unexplained, and 'interview_session_id' is only meaningful by name. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('interviewers assigned to an interview session'). The word 'assigned' clearly distinguishes this from the sibling 'available_interviewers_list' tool, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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 implies usage (when you need the interviewers assigned to a session) but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus the similar 'available_interviewers_list' or other sibling tools. No when-not or alternative routing is given, so it relies on inference.

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