generate_questions

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

Annotations already set readOnlyHint=true. Description reinforces 'Read-only' and adds 'does not create a role or schedule anything,' which aligns with annotations and clarifies non-destructive nature. No additional behavioral traits disclosed beyond annotations.

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 concise sentences. First sentence states purpose, second clarifies scope, third hints at parameter values. No fluff, but could be better structured with bullet points for parameters.

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 8 parameters, no output schema, and many siblings, the description covers main use case and parameter hints. However, it lacks description of return format or behavior on invalid input, which is needed since no output schema exists.

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 0%, so description must compensate. It provides enum values for interview_type and language, but leaves 6 other parameters (duration, position, company_name, job_description, required_skills, required_experience) unexplained. Insufficient for an 8-parameter tool.

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?

Clearly states action ('Generate interview questions using AI') and resource. Distinguishes from siblings by noting it does not create a role or schedule anything, and specifically references schedule_interview as the alternative.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use to preview what the bot will ask before committing to schedule_interview.' Implies not to use for actual scheduling, providing clear context and alternative.

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