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

With only destructiveHint=false in annotations, the description adds valuable behavioral details: 'No login or course needed' and 'Returns the interview protocol + a course recommendation.' It also implies a non-interactive prep activity. It does not contradict annotations.

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 is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and each sentence adds value. There is slight redundancy between 'realistic, calibrated' and 'real grilling,' but overall it is efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it still mentions the return content. It covers the main parameters and usage context. The main gap is not explicitly distinguishing from start_interview or clarifying whether the interview is interactive vs. protocol-based, but this is partially addressed by mentioning 'returns the interview protocol.'

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 0%, so the description carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It explains jd_or_skill, role, experience, and focus with examples (e.g., '5 years'), covering 4 of 5 parameters meaningfully. Only auth_token is left unexplained, but it is likely a standard auth parameter.

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 it is a 'realistic, calibrated interview for a role' and explicitly says it returns 'the interview protocol + a course recommendation,' making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from siblings like start_interview and daily_drill, though it does not explicitly name them as alternatives.

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?

It gives a clear usage context: 'Great when someone is prepping for an interview and wants a real grilling.' However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternative tools such as start_interview, so it lacks exclusion criteria.

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