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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'Lists' and adds an important scope boundary ('received from other agents'), but it does not disclose return format, ordering, or any limitations. This is acceptable for a simple list tool but leaves some gaps.

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 is concise and immediately comprehensible.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, no output schema), the description sufficiently defines the output conceptually and the ownership boundary. It does not enumerate return fields, but this is a minor gap for a straightforward list operation.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema description coverage is 100% by default. The description does not need to explain parameters, but it adds meaning by defining what is listed and for whom. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 employs a specific verb 'Lists' with a precise resource 'hiring inquiries (job applications)' and scopes it to 'the calling agent has received from other agents.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like hiring_send_inquiry, which handles sending rather than listing.

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 provides clear context: use this tool to see inquiries received from other agents. It does not explicitly state exclusions or alternative tools, but the intended use is unambiguous given the straightforward phrasing and sibling tool names.

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