get_interviewer

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-style lookup and emphasizes exact user ID matching, but it does not mention auth requirements, error behavior, whether non-interviewer users are accepted, or what 'details' includes.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to conveying the core lookup operation, making it an appropriately concise definition for its apparent simplicity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, so the description must carry more weight. Saying 'details' is vague, and the description does not clarify what fields are returned, whether the interviewee profile is needed, or how this tool relates to user/supervisor lookup tools.

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 for the input schema. It clarifies that user_id must be exact, but it leaves the optional 'profile' parameter completely unexplained and adds no meaning about relationships, formats, or allowed values beyond the property names themselves.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Get interviewer details' by 'exact user ID.' It is specific about the lookup mechanism, but it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from siblings like get_user, get_supervisor, or list_supervisor_interviewers, so it misses the top score.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_user or list_supervisor_interviewers. It implies a direct lookup by user_id, but there are no stated exclusions, prerequisites, or context for choosing this tool over a sibling.

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