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

Annotations already convey destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and readOnlyHint=false, so the description is not required to restate those. However, it adds no additional behavioral context, such as whether submission finalizes the scorecard, whether previous scorecards are overwritten, or any authorization requirements. The phrase 'with explicit ratings' only describes the input style, not the 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 short sentence, front-loading the action with no fluff. However, for a tool with seven parameters and a nested ratings array, this is under-specified rather than appropriately concise, so it does not earn a higher score.

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 complex (7 parameters, nested ratings array, no output schema, no schema parameter descriptions), yet the description is only one sentence. It fails to explain required subfields, rating scales, idempotency usage, or what happens after submission. An agent cannot reliably construct a valid request from this definition alone.

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 does not compensate. It makes no mention of interview_session_id, interviewer_user_id, the structure of ratings items (item_type, item_id, item_title, rating), rating scales (0-4 for items, 1-5 for overall), or idempotency_key. An agent would have to infer all parameter meaning solely from names and type constraints.

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 ('Submit') and resource ('interview-session scorecard'), and adds a qualifier ('with explicit ratings') that clarifies the mode of input. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like yardstick_interview_sessions_complete.

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 the tool is used when one wants to submit a scorecard for an interview session, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, exclusions, or references to alternative tools. The usage context is largely left to inference from the tool name and title.

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