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

Adds materially beyond the annotations: 'Fixed rules, no model' discloses deterministic behavior (consistent with openWorldHint=false), 'Contact details are removed before the check; the resume and the posting are not stored' discloses PII scrubbing and retention policy, and the Interview Coach Pass requirement discloses an auth gate. These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot carry.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the output inventory, then operational constraints. The long opening sentence is dense but each clause maps to a distinct output artifact; nothing is padding, though the four-part enumeration could be tightened slightly.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden itself and does so by listing the four components of the plan. Combined with the auth prerequisite, PII handling, and no-storage guarantee, an agent has enough to decide and call correctly; only error/failure behavior is left unstated, which is minor.

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 100%, so the schema already documents every parameter including the verbatim-matching rules for resume_outline and job_requirements and the 'adds questions written for that industry' behavior. The prose restates that resume text plus optional posting/company drive the plan but adds no new format or constraint detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource ('Builds the full interview plan') and then enumerates the concrete artifacts produced: resume lines a hiring manager will press on, posting requirements matched, company questions with source pages, questions ordered by interview stage. It also explicitly separates itself from the sibling by noting 'Same inputs and question ids as prepare_interview_questions', so an agent can distinguish full plan vs. question list without opening either schema.

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?

Gives a clear usage context (a PM/PgM/product manager or business analyst prep, driven by resume text plus optional posting and company) and states a hard prerequisite: sign-in with a PM Career Desk account holding an Interview Coach Pass. The alternative is implied through the prepare_interview_questions reference, but there is no explicit 'use the other tool when you only want the raw question list' exclusion.

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