qc_interview_duration

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only states the core flagging action and data sources; it does not disclose that this is an analysis-only operation, how thresholds are applied, whether data is mutated, or what the caller receives. Richer methodology details exist in the x_suso_qc metadata, but not in the description itself.

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 and integrates the key data-source distinction efficiently. It is appropriately brief, though it could have front-loaded what the caller gets back.

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 8 parameters, several undocumented, no output schema, and no annotations. The one-sentence description does not cover thresholds, required export setup, profile/plan configuration, or result shape, leaving an agent with insufficient context to invoke the tool robustly despite the extra x_suso_qc metadata.

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 50%, so the schema partially documents parameters like variables, thresholds, and export_path. The description adds useful context by clarifying that duration data can come from Tabular fields or Paradata duration events, which maps to the required export type, but it does not explain several undocumented parameters such as plan, profile, confirm_plan_id, or questionnaire_identity.

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 action ('Flag'), a precise object ('unusually short or long interviews'), and the two data sources ('duration fields from Tabular data or duration events from Paradata'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling QC tools such as qc_submission_timing_bursts or qc_straightlining.

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, nor are any exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. The intended context is implied by the 'qc_' naming convention and the description's flagging language, but no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.

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