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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the tool lists all reasons, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as read-only nature, permissions needed, pagination behavior, or any side effects. The schema implies pagination via cursor and per_page, but description omits this.

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, efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose without extraneous words. It is front-loaded and directly relevant.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description should provide more context about return value structure or pagination behavior. It lacks details on what fields the rejection reasons contain and how pagination works, which are important for proper invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters. It does not explain how to use parameters effectively.

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 all rejection reasons in Greenhouse and indicates they are predefined reasons for rejecting candidates. This verb-resource combination is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_close_reasons.

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 stating these reasons are available when rejecting candidates, but it does not explicitly specify when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_rejection_details. No when-not-to-use guidance or alternative tool mentions.

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