Interview Prep

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint), the description reveals premium tier status, depth variation based on seniority, and context sources (job description, tech stack, user skills), providing rich behavioral context without contradiction.

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 concise with two sentences that are front-loaded with purpose. Every sentence adds value: first sentence specifies outputs, second provides usage guidance and sibling distinction.

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 tool's complexity, output schema existence, and 100% parameter coverage, the description sufficiently covers inputs, outputs, usage, and constraints, leaving no major gaps for an AI agent.

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 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions (url, jobId, domain). The instruction to pass jobId verbatim is already in 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 clearly states the tool generates targeted interview prep with specific outputs (5 key topics, 5 questions, 3 research items) and explicitly distinguishes from the sibling tool `resume_rewrite` by stating it is not for resume tailoring.

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 provides explicit use cases ('help me prep for my Anthropic interview') and directly states when not to use the tool ('Not for resume tailoring — use `resume_rewrite` for that'), offering clear guidance and an alternative.

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