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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true; the description adds real value beyond them by stating the auth prerequisites (sign-in plus verified referrer account), that the candidate is notified with the supplied tags and note, and that they can send a corrected CV back. It does not spell out what state is destroyed by the destructive hint or whether the request can be re-requested, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Four short sentences with no filler; prerequisites, effect, and the sibling routing rule are all stated compactly. Leading with the auth requirement rather than the action is a minor structural weakness, but nothing is wasted.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers preconditions, side effects (notification to candidate) and the alternative tool. The only gap is the unresolved consequence for the referral request itself when the candidate is asked to fix their CV.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is documented inline, so the baseline is 3. The description only adds that the tags and note are delivered to the candidate, which is mild added meaning rather than syntax or constraint detail.

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?

"Asks the candidate to fix their CV" is a specific verb+resource, and the description names the sibling it replaces (decline_referral_request), so an agent can distinguish it. The phrase "before the request goes on" is slightly opaque about the request's resulting state, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Explicit routing rule: "Use it instead of decline_referral_request when the candidate fits but the CV does not show it." This names the alternative tool and the exact condition that selects it, leaving nothing to inference.

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