oahelper_interviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses a side effect (saving full write-ups to library/<company>/interviews/), the pagination rate (12 per page, most relevant first), and that the return is only a short list. It omits overwrite behavior, auth/permission needs, and rate limits, which keeps it below a 5.

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 tight sentences with the core resource front-loaded and the side effect plus the required follow-up action stated next. Every clause carries information; only minor polish is missing.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what is returned (a short list), where the full text lives, and the page size. Remaining gaps (whether re-running overwrites saved files, how `pages` interacts with results) are secondary.

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% for both parameters, so the description must compensate. '12 per page' gives the agent a way to infer what `pages` means (pages × 12 results, default 2), and `company` is implicitly the lookup key, but neither is stated explicitly.

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 states a specific resource ('Interview experiences for a company') and its source (OAHelper), which is clear enough for an agent to distinguish it from oahelper_question or oahelper_solution. It does not explicitly contrast itself with oahelper_search, so sibling differentiation is only partial.

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?

Usage is implied: fetch interview write-ups for a company, then 'read the saved files for the full text,' which is a useful follow-up instruction. There is no guidance on when to prefer this over oahelper_search or how to size the `pages` parameter, so no explicit when/when-not reasoning is given.

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