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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates a read operation returning specific fields, but does not mention pagination behavior (cursor, per_page) or rate limits. The schema hints at pagination but the description does not clarify.

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 two sentences: the first states the main action, the second specifies return fields. Concise and front-loaded with essential info, no redundant text.

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 description is fairly complete for a list operation with 8 parameters. It specifies the tool's purpose and return fields. However, it could mention that results are paginated by default (as inferred from cursor and per_page parameters) for full completeness.

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 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond the schema. The description mentions return fields that relate to parameters like application_ids and rejection_reason_ids, but this is more about context than parameter semantics.

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 lists rejection details for Greenhouse applications, specifying the exact return fields (application_id, reason_id, rejected_at, rejected_by). This distinguishes it from sibling list tools, as no other sibling focuses on rejection details.

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 'disposition hygiene' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like list_applications or list_rejection_reasons. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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