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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the specific fields returned (stage, status, rejection context), which is useful but not rich behavioral context like pagination or side effects. It does not contradict annotations, and the read-only nature is adequately communicated by both.

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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, with no unnecessary words. It efficiently conveys the purpose and key output without wasting tokens.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and the fields returned. However, it does not clarify whether the full application object is returned or only the mentioned fields, and it omits any mention of the 'include' parameter behavior. An agent might have minor ambiguity about the exact response structure.

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 50%: the 'include' parameter is described in the schema, while 'id' is not. The tool description does not add any parameter information beyond what the schema provides. Since the description does not compensate for the missing 'id' description, but 'id' is self-explanatory, a score of 3 is appropriate as the baseline for medium coverage.

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 states a clear verb and resource ('Get an application') and specifies the key fields returned (stage, status, rejection context), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It is distinct from other get_* siblings because it targets applications specifically, and the listed fields differentiate it from generic application retrieval.

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 (retrieve a single application by ID) but does not explicitly mention when to use it versus alternatives like hires_list_applications or hires_get_candidate. There is no explicit exclusions or named sibling for comparison, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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