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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that resume contact fields are blanked unless the application status is SHORTLISTED or HIRED, which is a key behavioral detail. However, it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects.

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 extremely concise: two sentences that front-load the main purpose and then add a specific condition and a pointer to a sibling tool. No extraneous words.

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 presence of an output schema (assumed to cover return values) and the description's coverage of bundle components and a specific condition, it is moderately complete. However, the lack of documentation for the apiKey parameter and no guidance on error handling or response size make it less than fully comprehensive.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only implicitly references 'applicationId' but does not describe the parameter itself or any format expectations. The 'apiKey' parameter is entirely undocumented in the description, leaving a significant gap for the AI agent.

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 clearly states the tool returns a 'full applicant bundle' and lists specific components (resume, interview light slice, GitHub, LinkedIn analysis). It distinguishes from the sibling tool employer.get_applicant_transcript by noting that the transcript is handled separately.

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 indicates that for verbatim transcripts, the sibling tool employer.get_applicant_transcript should be used, providing a clear alternative. It also notes conditions for contact field redaction, giving context on when full data is available. However, it does not explicitly address other potential alternatives like employer.get_candidate.

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