interview_company_brief

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool is pure (no network, no LLM) and returns a CompanyBrief with [TO_RESEARCH] placeholders and a checklist. This adds behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not clarify whether the tool saves data, requires authentication, or has other side effects. Given no annotations, the description is moderate, not fully comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and contains no extraneous words. Every sentence adds value: first sentence defines the core action and resource, second sentence clarifies constraints and output. Perfect conciseness.

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 the presence of an output schema, the description need not detail return values. It does include the nature of the output (CompanyBrief with placeholders and checklist). However, it could be more complete by explaining what [TO_RESEARCH] placeholders are or how the checklist is structured. The tool is simple, so a 3 is fair – adequate but not thorough.

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 100% – all three parameters have descriptions. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating the return type. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema already handles param documentation, and the description does not compensate with extra details (e.g., how 'notes' and 'jobs' affect the scaffold).

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 the verb 'build' and identifies the resource as a 'structured research scaffold for interview preparation'. It clarifies that the tool is 'PURE — no network, no LLM', which distinguishes it from research tools that make external calls. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar interview preparation siblings like 'interview_question_bank'.

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 description mentions 'interview preparation' but does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives. It hints at its nature ('no network, no LLM') but provides no explicit comparison, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no prerequisites. This leaves the agent without clear guidance on selecting this tool among many interview-related siblings.

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