get_interview

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does declare 'Read-only' up front plus the shape of the returned details (application, interviewers, organizer, times, status). It omits permission/auth requirements and any caveats about restricted or deleted interviews, so it is good but not exhaustive.

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?

Three short lines, zero filler: purpose and read-only nature first, return contents second, ID-discovery route last. Every sentence earns its place.

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 single-parameter read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the operation, its safety profile, and how to obtain the required ID. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% with a single integer parameter, and the description's note about where IDs come from ('list_interviews_for_application') repeats what the schema property description already says. Baseline 3 is appropriate — it adds no syntax or format detail 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get a scheduled interview by ID'), plus a behavioral qualifier ('Read-only') and an enumeration of the returned fields. It is unambiguously distinct from list_interviews, list_interviews_for_application, and update_interview/delete_interview among the many siblings.

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 routes the agent to the right companion tool for discovering the required ID ('list_interviews_for_application on the candidate's app'), which is exactly the prerequisite an agent needs. It does not phrase this as an explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the alternative is named and the condition that selects it is clear.

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