get_interview_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get available answer/detail values' without stating read-only behavior, output shape, error behavior, or any prerequisites. It does not go beyond what the tool name alone implies.

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 primary function is front-loaded, and the alternative guidance is placed second, making it easy to parse and act on.

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 two-parameter tool without output schema, the description is adequate for basic invocation and sibling routing, but it leaves gaps: it does not describe what 'answer/detail values' concretely contain, what profile means, or what the response looks like. It is enough to get started but not fully complete for a confident call.

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 clarifies that interview_id identifies the interview, but it completely ignores the 'profile' parameter and gives no semantics for it. Half of the parameters remain undocumented.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('Get available answer/detail values') and resource ('one interview by interview ID'). It also distinguishes itself from get_interview_history and get_interview_stats by assigning them to audit trail, status changes, comments, and counts. However, the phrase 'answer/detail values' remains somewhat vague and could be more precise about what is actually returned.

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 explicitly routes the agent to relevant siblings: 'Use get_interview_history and get_interview_stats for audit trail, status changes, comments, and operational counts.' This gives clear when-to-use versus when-to-prefer-alternatives guidance, which is particularly valuable given the large sibling list.

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