get_interview_stats

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

There are no annotations, so the description itself must establish the operation. The 'Get' verb implies read-only behavior, and the list of statistics communicates what the caller will receive. It does not disclose output shape, permissions, or error behavior, but for a retrieval tool this is acceptable baseline transparency.

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 direct sentence front-loads the action and resource, then lists the returned statistics. No filler words or repetition; the enumerative list is a bit long but each item earns its place.

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 simple 2-parameter retrieval tool, the description covers the main output fields and enough context to call with interview_id. However, with no output schema, no annotations, and undocumented 'profile', the definition leaves some agent uncertainty about return structure and how the optional parameter affects the 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%, and the description does not explain either parameter. 'interview_id' is inferable from 'interview-level', but the optional 'profile' parameter is never mentioned, and no format or value guidance is given. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema.

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 names a clear verb-resource pair: 'Get interview-level statistics' and enumerates specific fields (answered/not answered, valid/invalid, comments count, duration, key, status, web interview URL). It does not name or contrast with sibling tools like get_interview_details or get_statistics_report, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 provided on when to choose this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions. The word 'interview-level' hints at scope, but the description never says 'use this for per-interview stats; use get_statistics_report for aggregates' or similar.

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