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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=true), and the description adds genuinely new behavior: it returns the questions and is retry-safe via idempotency_key. The conditional idempotency (repeat with same key returns original) complements rather than contradicts idempotentHint=false, which reflects the default no-key case.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then parameters, return value, and retry behavior. The parenthetical packing count/steer is dense but every sentence earns its place with 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?

For a 7-parameter generation tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the return value, count bounds, steering, and retry semantics. It omits guidance on brand_id vs workspace_id scoping, but the essentials for a correct call are present.

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 57%, so baseline is 3. The description restates count (8 default, 4-20) and steer, both already fully specified in the schema, but does add meaning for idempotency_key (retry-safe replay), which the schema leaves undocumented. brand_id, workspace_id, body, and query get no description coverage.

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?

Specific verb (Generate) plus a uniquely named resource (brand interview questions) and an explicit purpose (capturing the brand's story and voice). No sibling generates interview questions, so an agent can route to it on the name alone.

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 purpose hints at a scenario, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or reference to alternatives such as other generation tools (generate_analytics_insights, generate_inbox_reply_draft, run_prompt). An agent gets no routing guidance.

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