ashby_list_upcoming_interviews

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

The description adds behavioral detail beyond the readOnlyHint annotation: it states that the tool "fetches interview schedules, resolves candidate and job details, and filters by date range," and it describes the response structure in terms of items[] and their fields. This gives an agent a clear picture of what happens and what to expect, though it stops short of discussing edge cases or exact filtering semantics beyond what the schema already says.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then gives practical usage examples, then explains the internals and the response shape. Each sentence contributes value, and the response structure is included because there is no output schema to rely on. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not padded or repetitive.

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 that the tool has 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description compensates well by describing the response items and their fields. It also explains that candidate and job details are resolved, which helps agents understand the output. It lacks only minor details like pagination behavior beyond the limit parameter, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly.

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 the parameters are already fully documented with types, defaults, enum values, and descriptions. The description's phrase "filters by date range" merely restates the start_after/start_before parameters and does not add any new meaning beyond the schema's own per-parameter descriptions. A baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource, "List upcoming and pending interview schedules," and immediately gives concrete example queries that show exactly what the tool does. It is clearly distinct from siblings: no other sibling tool claims to list interview schedules; ashby_list_interview_stages is about stages, not schedules.

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 usage context with example questions like "What interviews do I have this week?" and "Who needs to be scheduled?", which strongly signals when to use it. However, it doesn't explicitly mention which sibling tools are alternatives or when to prefer them, so it lacks a clear when-not-to-use statement.

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