find_stale_interviews

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a useful behavioral detail: staleness is computed using 'available updated/history timestamps.' However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output shape is, or how status/profile affect the search.

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 a single sentence with no filler. The core purpose and key threshold are front-loaded, and 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?

The tool has four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description only addresses min_days. It lacks information about how status, now_utc, and profile interact, what 'no movement' means precisely, and what the tool returns. This is not complete enough for reliable autonomous invocation.

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 the description must compensate. It explains min_days as the staleness threshold, but leaves status, now_utc, and profile semantically unexplained. This is insufficient for an agent to confidently set those parameters.

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 and resource: it finds interviews with no movement for at least min_days. This makes the core purpose understandable and distinguishes it from a plain list_interviews tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling alternatives.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_interviews, get_interview_history, or investigate_interviewer_anomaly. The description implies its use case but provides no explicit context, exclusions, or alternative routing.

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