get_interview_prep

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: resume lines are "quoted, never written" (no fabrication), the sheet output is markdown ready to read, and for hand-added applications the posting is resolved on a watched board by requisition id.

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 purpose is front-loaded, but the middle is a dense, comma-spliced run-on ("what was sent, questions to expect and to ask, and the posting") and "markdown is the sheet ready to read" is awkwardly phrased. Every idea earns its place, but the packing hurts readability.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the sheet's sections and stating the markdown format. Key resolution and sibling alternatives are covered; only minor gaps remain (e.g., no indication of failure when no posting is found).

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?

There is one parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema already documents the key format, the bare-posting-id fallback, company-name matching, and the multi-match error behavior. The description only adds that a hand-added application resolves via requisition id on a watched board, which is marginal over the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete artifact (a prep sheet for a recruiter call or interview) and enumerates its contents: stage/next step, requirement-to-resume-line mapping, gaps, what was sent, questions, and the posting. It explicitly differentiates from siblings by stating that get_job and get_application_package give the raw pieces, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening schemas.

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?

"Use it before a call" gives a clear trigger, and the closing sentence routes the agent to get_job and get_application_package when raw data is wanted instead. There is no explicit statement of when not to use it (e.g., no application yet), but the alternative routing is strong enough for a 4.

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