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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that: WITHDRAWN applications cannot be moved or messaged, and contact details/resumes are deliberately withheld. This tells the agent about downstream constraints and data scope, which is exactly the kind of value annotations cannot express.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler: the first front-loads the resource and return fields, the second carries the two caveats. The leading fragment is slightly telegraphic but readable, and nothing is redundant.

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 small read-only list tool with three fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers what is returned, the aggregate stage counts, and the WITHDRAWN exception. Only pagination/limit behavior and the ordering of results are left unstated, which is minor at this complexity.

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 coverage is 100%, so jobId, limit, and status are already documented, making 3 the baseline. The description earns a point by explaining the semantics of the WITHDRAWN enum value and its consequences, information the schema's terse 'Filter by stage' does not provide.

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 names the resource precisely (applicants belonging to one of the employer's jobs) and enumerates the returned fields (name, stage, fit score, applied date, stage counts). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings such as screen_applicants or find_candidates, and the verb is nominal rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is implied by 'the employer's jobs' and the WITHDRAWN caveat, and the note that contact details/resumes live in the Jobiba dashboard hints at a boundary. However, no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tool (e.g. screen_applicants, list_shortlist) is named for adjacent needs.

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