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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does a solid job: it explains the alreadyContacted flag semantics, states that the operation fails with a not-found message when nobody is found, and advises retrying after a minute on lookup failure. It omits any auth/credit cost or rate-limit detail, which keeps it below a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with the core purpose and return contract front-loaded, followed by the flag semantics and failure behavior. The inline 'alreadyContacted ({date})' notation is slightly cryptic formatting, but no sentence is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe the return payload, and it does at a high level (contact info plus an alreadyContacted flag) along with both failure modes. It could say more about which contact fields come back, but nothing essential for calling it correctly is missing.

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 a single required parameter at 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents applicationId. The description only implicitly reinforces that the ID refers to a saved application; it adds no format or sourcing detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get the recruiter for a saved job application') and adds the scoping detail that the recruiter is matched to the role's function. It implicitly separates itself from the job-level sibling get_job_recruiters by scoping to a saved application, but never names the recruiter-vs-referrer distinction that separates it from get_application_referrers.

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 phrase 'for a saved job application' and 'contact info for reaching out' implies the outreach use case, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent must infer on its own why it would pick this over get_job_recruiters, get_application_referrers, or list_outreaches.

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