Get interview prices

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the tool is known to be a safe read with evolving data. The description adds the 'current' qualifier, indicating prices may change, but otherwise does not disclose output format, pagination, or any additional behavioral details. Given annotation coverage, a mid-range score is appropriate.

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, front-loaded sentence conveys the action, resource, and relevant dimensions with no wasted words. It is concise while remaining informative.

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 parameterless, read-only price lookup with an output schema present, the description is sufficiently complete. It tells the agent what the tool offers and the key dimensions of the returned data, while annotations cover the safety profile.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline for this dimension is 4. The description usefully notes that results are organized by interview type and duration, which adds semantic context even though no parameters are needed to invoke the 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('current price list for Repovive mock interviews'), and the organizing dimensions ('by interview type and duration'). This distinguishes the tool from related siblings like check_interview_capacity or list_interview_sessions, whose purposes are different.

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 implies the tool is for retrieving price information rather than checking capacity or managing sessions, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternative interview-related tools. Use case is clear enough from the wording, but no exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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