get_interview_schedule

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should fully disclose behavior. It states 'List' implying read-only, but does not confirm safety, auth requirements, or any side effects. The only extra info is the pending_feedback_only parameter effect.

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?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The purpose is front-loaded and the parameter hint is concise. The description is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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?

Although an output schema exists (handling return values), the description is incomplete for a 4-parameter tool with zero parameter documentation. It covers only one parameter and lacks details on date range and interviewer filtering, which are typical filtering needs.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain all parameters. Only pending_feedback_only is explained (as a filter for awaiting feedback). No meaning is added for to_date, from_date, or interviewer, leaving three parameters undocumented.

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 it lists upcoming interviews and pending evaluations, with a specific verb ('List') and a distinct resource. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_candidate_details or get_job_pipeline, which also deal with schedules.

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 for viewing upcoming interviews and pending feedback, but provides no guidance on when not to use or alternatives. No exclusion criteria or context for filtering are mentioned beyond the boolean parameter.

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