interview_questions

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 mentions a payment requirement (0.001 SOL), which is useful context for cost and authentication needs, but fails to describe other critical behaviors such as rate limits, response format, error handling, or whether the operation is idempotent. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that involves financial transactions.

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 extremely concise with two sentences that directly state the tool's function and a key requirement. There is no wasted language, and it is front-loaded with the primary purpose, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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?

Given the complexity of a paid tool with 5 parameters, low schema coverage (20%), and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It mentions payment but omits details on parameter usage, return values, error cases, and behavioral constraints, which are essential for safe and effective tool invocation in this context.

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 low at 20%, with only one parameter ('signature') having a description. The tool description adds no information about parameters beyond what's in the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. For example, it doesn't explain what 'jobTitle', 'jobDescription', or 'experienceLevel' should contain, or how 'questionCount' affects output.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Generates') and resource ('personalized interview questions'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling tools that might also generate content, such as 'generate_quote' or 'pitch_deck', which could create ambiguity in tool selection.

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 implies usage by mentioning a payment requirement, suggesting it should be used when the user is willing to pay for interview questions. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'cv_screener' or other content-generation siblings, and doesn't specify prerequisites beyond payment.

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