hires_list_candidate_interviews

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full disclosure burden. It reveals the aggregation behavior ('across all applications') and hints at use cases, but does not disclose output structure, ordering, pagination defaults, or authentication requirements. This is comparable to sparse descriptions that score 2.

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 primary action and followed by use cases. No redundant or filler language.

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?

The tool is a simple paginated list with no output schema, but the description does not specify return fields, ordering, or pagination defaults. It provides use cases but lacks behavioral details that would help an agent interpret the response. Adequate for basic selection but not fully complete.

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 input schema covers all three parameters with descriptions (id, page, size), so the baseline is 3. The description adds context that the id refers to a candidate and that interviews span all applications, but it does not elaborate on page/size semantics beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') plus the resource ('interviews for a candidate') and scope ('across all applications'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like hires_list_interviews (global) and hires_get_interview (single).

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 explicitly states the tool's use cases ('timeline views and scheduling conflict detection'), and the 'across all applications' scope differentiates it from alternatives. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare it to similar list tools.

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