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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful scope qualifier 'visible to the current principal', which clarifies permission-limited results, but says nothing about pagination behavior or result shape — analogous to the calibration case that earned a 3.

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 tight sentences: purpose first, filter guidance second, with no filler. The CLI-style '--param' notation is mildly informal but compact and front-loads the essential information well.

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 5-parameter list tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description should at least mention pagination (limit/starting_after) and the request_id purpose. It adequately explains scoping and two filters but leaves the remaining parameters and result behavior to guesswork.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only explains 2 of 5 parameters: job_id (with a use case) and hiring_manager_decision (repeating the enum values). The limit, request_id, and starting_after parameters — including pagination — are left entirely undocumented in both places.

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 (application person + Job attachments) with an explicit visibility scope, so an agent can distinguish it from yardstick_applications_read or the many mutation siblings. The phrasing 'application person + Job attachments' is slightly awkward but conveys that it returns applications linking people to jobs.

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 gives concrete when-to-use guidance for two filters: --job-id 'to find candidates for a role' and --hiring-manager-decision 'for where the hiring manager's decision stands'. However, it never contrasts with alternatives such as yardstick_applications_read (single record) or people_list, so routing guidance is incomplete.

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