List interview sessions

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, and the description adds useful behavioral context: results are limited to the authenticated account, include scheduling/status, and support offset/limit paging. This goes beyond the structured metadata without contradicting the 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?

The description is two sentences with no filler. The tool's purpose and scope are front-loaded, and the paging note is a natural, minimal second sentence.

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 read-only list operation with two optional, self-documenting parameters and an existing output schema, the description provides the necessary scope and paging behavior. No critical information is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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?

The input schema fully documents both limit and offset with defaults, ranges, and descriptions, so the schema carries the parameter-semantics burden. The description's mention of 'offset/limit paging' confirms the behavior but adds no new parameter information, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 clear verb and specific resource: 'List the mock-interview sessions booked by the authenticated account.' It also names the returned content ('scheduling and status'), making the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from the many contest, document, and build-related list tools among the siblings.

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 clearly establishes when to use the tool: to list the authenticated account's mock-interview sessions. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusions, but the scoping is unambiguous and no sibling tool competes for this exact operation, so the context is sufficient.

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