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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description only needs to add context. It does so by disclosing what the response contains, which is valuable given there is no output schema, though it says nothing about caching, size, or whether the guide is static.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause adds information an agent needs (contents plus call ordering). No filler.

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 burden of describing the return, and it does list the categories of content, which is enough to call the tool correctly. It is slightly thin on what 'engine limits' or the file format actually look like, but this is adequate for a zero-arg bootstrap tool.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% coverage, so there is nothing for the description to document. Baseline 4 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 (returns) and resource (the interview guide) and then enumerates the concrete payload: questions to ask the user, default values, engine limits, and the exact format of the 8 input files. 'Call this first' also positions it against siblings like validate_input and create_schedule, so an agent can tell what the tool is for without opening anything else.

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 this first' is explicit sequencing guidance that tells the agent when to invoke it relative to the workflow siblings. It stops short of naming alternatives or stating what to do if the guide is not needed, but for a zero-arg entry point this is clear operational context.

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