list_interviews_for_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; it does declare 'Read-only' and enumerates the returned fields (times, interview name, interviewers with scorecard_id, status). It omits auth/permission requirements and error behavior, so it is solid 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?

Two short paragraphs, front-loaded with the core purpose and safety note, followed by the id-derivation hint. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need not be explained (and the brief enumeration is a bonus). Single required param, read-only operation, and the id-sourcing workflow are all covered; nothing an agent needs to call 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 coverage is 100% (single application_id documented as 'Greenhouse application ID'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain the id via the search → list_applications chain, which the schema does not convey.

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+resource with clear scope: 'List scheduled interviews for a specific application.' The 'for a specific application' qualifier distinguishes it from the sibling list_interviews (which is broader), so an agent can route correctly without opening a schema.

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?

Provides an explicit derivation chain for the required application_id (search_candidates_by_name → list_applications → match to job), which is genuine usage guidance. It does not explicitly name list_interviews as the alternative or state when-not-to-use this tool, so it stops short of 5.

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