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 behavior beyond annotations: visibility is scoped to the current principal and archived pools are excluded unless include_archived is true.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler. The core behavior is front-loaded, and the archived-pool exception is stated efficiently in the second sentence.

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 read-only list tool with safety covered by annotations, the description conveys the key behavioral rules: principal-scoped visibility and archived exclusion. It does not describe pagination semantics or return shape, and there is no output schema, but the operation is simple enough that the main invocation behavior is clear.

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 does explain include_archived's effect, but it does not clarify limit, starting_after, or request_id. The names hint at pagination and correlation, but the description provides no semantics for three of the four parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('Talent CRM pools'), and adds scoping information: pools visible to the current principal. It also makes the archived-pool behavior explicit, which distinguishes this listing tool from read/create/update siblings.

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 clear context by noting that archived pools are excluded by default and can be included via include_archived. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, but the listing behavior is unambiguous for a list operation.

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