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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true; the description adds substantive behavior beyond that: the shape of returned data (contact data, current hiring step, disqualification status) and the pagination contract. It stops short of noting ordering defaults or result-size limits, but the added context is genuinely useful.

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 short sentences: payload content first, paging second, search semantics third. Nothing is repeated from the title and no sentence is filler.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description covers what comes back, how to page, and the one ambiguous filter. The only remaining gap is the caller must guess when to prefer this over the broader talenthr_list_applicants.

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 schema leaves `search` undescribed (83% coverage overall), and the description fills that gap by naming the three matched fields — first name, last name, and e-mail. It also reinforces the offset/next_offset continuation pattern, though sort/order semantics are left entirely to 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 with scope conveyed ('applicants of one job position') and lists the notable fields returned. It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling talenthr_list_applicants, which is the main ambiguity an agent would face.

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 paging instruction ('use next_offset to continue') is a real operational cue, implying repeated calls. But there is no statement of when to use this versus talenthr_list_applicants or talenthr_get_applicant, so the agent must infer the distinction.

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