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

Annotations already declare this a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world generation call, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful non-schema context — a fixed $0.15 per-call cost — which matters for a non-idempotent tool an agent might otherwise retry. It stops short of describing output shape, question count, or generation behaviour.

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 purpose and the cost disclosure are efficient and earn their place. However, the trailing "Preparing a structured interview." is a dangling fragment with no subject or verb, costing a sentence without adding guidance.

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?

No output schema and no annotations describing returns, yet the description says nothing about what comes back (number of questions, format, structure), how the two inputs shape output, or whether the call is repeatable given idempotentHint=false. For a paid generation tool with two undocumented required params, this leaves real gaps.

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 0% and both parameters are required with no descriptions. The word "role-specific" loosely maps to `role`, but `requirements` — the more ambiguous input — is never explained (free text? extracted from a job ad? how detailed?). The description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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?

A specific verb+resource pair ("Produce ... interview questions") with a scoping qualifier ("role-specific"). It is clearly distinct from closest siblings like fikra_generate_job_description, fikra_screen_cv, or fikra_compare_candidates, but the description never names or excludes any of them explicitly.

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?

"Preparing a structured interview" implies the usage context but is a sentence fragment offering no when/when-not guidance and no alternatives. An agent can infer the scenario but must guess whether e.g. fikra_extract_job_requirements should be called first to build the `requirements` input.

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