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

Adds substantial context beyond the annotations: paid-plan requirement, no credit consumption, asynchronous background generation with a re-call-after-a-minute polling pattern, and an explicit untrusted-content trust boundary for generated advice and external company material. None of this is derivable from readOnlyHint/idempotentHint/openWorldHint.

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?

Five tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and the ID constraint, then the plan/credit cost, then the async polling behavior and the safety caveat. Every sentence adds operational information; nothing is redundant.

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?

Covers the four things an agent needs that structured fields don't provide: exactly-one-ID selection, billing/plan eligibility, the asynchronous read-back loop, and the untrusted-content handling rule. Return-value shape is covered by the output schema, so the description needn't explain it.

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 both IDs are optional integers with no oneOf constraint, so the description carries the burden. "Supply exactly one ID" supplies the critical mutual-exclusivity rule the schema omits, though it doesn't restate per-parameter meaning beyond the self-explanatory names.

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?

States a specific verb (prepare) and concrete deliverable set (interview questions, talking points, company context) scoped to one owned application or active listing. No sibling tool in the list overlaps with interview preparation, so the agent can route here unambiguously.

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?

"Call only when the member requests preparation" gives an explicit trigger condition, and "Supply exactly one ID" constrains the call shape. It does not name any alternative tool or spell out a when-not case, but no sibling competes for this job, so the guidance is effectively complete.

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