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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description's 'Get' operation is consistent with these hints and adds nothing contradicting or beyond them, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 consists of a single six-word sentence that leads with the core action and object. There is no filler, redundant wording, or episodic content, achieving maximum informational density.

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 straightforward get-by-id tool with annotations covering the read-only safety profile, the description is minimally sufficient to allow invocation. However, it does not elaborate on the expected response shape, possible error conditions, or the behavior of the 'include' parameter, which leaves the agent partially reliant on external knowledge.

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?

With schema description coverage at 50%, the description compensates somewhat by clarifying that 'id' is the identifier used to fetch the interview. The 'include' parameter already has a schema description ('Embed: candidate, application, job'), so the description provides minimal but sufficient added meaning for the undocumented id field.

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 explicitly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('interview'), plus the selection mechanism ('by id'). It is not a tautology and provides a clear, specific purpose, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like hires_list_interviews or hires_list_candidate_interviews beyond the implied single-item vs. list difference.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer listing interviews instead, or any contextual hint beyond the basic 'Get by id' operation, leaving the agent to infer usage on its own.

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