Generate Interview Questions

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

The readOnlyHint and destructiveHint annotations already indicate no side effects, and the description adds the important authentication requirement of a connected AI Applyd account. It does not contradict the annotations and provides additional behavioral context beyond them.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that lists the key outputs efficiently. It includes the necessary authentication caveat without unnecessary verbosity, making it easy to parse.

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 no output schema, the description provides a thorough list of what the tool will generate, covering all major aspects of interview prep. It also notes the account requirement and the optional job description, making it complete for an agent to decide to invoke it.

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 schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds semantic value by linking job_description to 'STAR scenarios drawn from the posting', clarifying how that optional parameter influences the output.

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's purpose as producing interview preparation for a specific role and company. It lists the specific outputs (company insights, questions, STAR scenarios, talking points, etc.), making it distinct from sibling tools like cover letter generation or resume scoring.

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 implies when to use the tool (when interview preparation is needed for a role and company) and states the prerequisite of a connected AI Applyd account. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.

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