hires_get_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'Get' and the recommendation to use it before mutations imply it is read-only, but the description does not explicitly state that no changes are made. It does add useful context about the return content (stage, status, rejection context), which goes beyond the tool name, but lacks details on response format, potential errors, or authorization requirements.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and key details. Every word adds value, and there is no redundancy or fluff. It sets a clear expectation and even includes a usage recommendation without becoming verbose.

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 simple get tool with two clearly documented parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate. It tells the agent what data is returned (stage, status, rejection context) and when to use it. It does not mention response structure, but the lack of an output schema lowers the burden. A slightly more detailed description of the include parameter or return object would push it to 5.

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 input schema has full coverage (100%) for both parameters, with descriptions for 'id' and 'include'. The tool description does not introduce any new parameter semantics; it focuses on output details rather than parameter behavior. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage the baseline is 3, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 retrieves full application details, specifically mentioning stage, status, and rejection context. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like hires_list_applications (list vs. single) and mutation tools like hires_advance_application. The verb 'Get' plus resource 'application' makes the function unambiguous.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Recommended before mutating stage transitions.' This tells the agent when to call this tool before performing actions like advancing or rejecting an application. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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