Check interview capacity

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

The readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations already establish that this is a read-only, externally changing check. The description adds 'currently' and 'available for booking,' reinforcing the volatile, pre-booking nature of the answer, but it provides no further behavioral detail such as effect on capacity or confirmation semantics. No contradiction with 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition of the tool name. Every word contributes to the meaning.

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 zero-parameter read-only check with an output schema and safety annotations already present, the description needs only to state what is being checked and why. 'Report whether Repovive currently has mock-interview capacity available for booking' does that completely.

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 input schema has zero properties, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. Baseline for zero-parameter tools is 4; no additional parameter guidance is needed.

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?

Description uses a specific verb ('Report') and resource ('mock-interview capacity') and clarifies the exact question being answered ('whether ... available for booking'). This distinguishes it from interview-related siblings such as repovive_get_interview_prices and repovive_list_interview_sessions, which address price and session listing rather than availability.

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 phrase 'currently has ... available for booking' gives a clear context: this check is the precondition for attempting a booking. It does not, however, name alternative tools or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of an explicit routing statement.

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