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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool is read-only, returns only caller's applications, orders by newest first, and includes status, dates, interview score, and job summary. Minor omission: no explicit mention of no side effects, but it's implied.

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 sentences with no wasted words; the first sentence front-loads purpose and key details; the second adds an important constraint.

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 and the presence of an output schema (not shown but provided), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, output contents, ordering, and caller restriction.

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% with only one optional apiKey parameter. The description adds no additional meaning about the parameter beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('candidate's own job applications'), includes ordering ('newest first'), and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by noting it is not an enumeration surface and returns only the caller's applications.

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?

It clearly states when to use (to list the candidate's own applications) and when not (no jobId input, not an enumeration surface), implicitly contrasting with employer.list_applicants.

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