hires_list_application_evaluations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses what each evaluation includes (evaluator, summary score, summary text) and uses the verb 'List' to imply a read operation. However, it does not mention return format, pagination, error behavior, or permission requirements, which would enhance transparency for a list endpoint.

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 two sentences, front-loads the primary purpose, and then adds concise details about the evaluation content. Every word adds value with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient.

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 one-parameter list tool, the description provides the core functionality and output field details. While it lacks explicit pagination or error handling notes, the simplicity of the tool and the input schema make the description sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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% and the parameter 'id' is already described as 'Application ID.' The description merely reinforces this by saying 'for an application' without adding new semantic details like value ranges or requirements. The schema carries the descriptive burden, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'List all filled evaluation forms for an application,' providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'hires_get_evaluation' (single evaluation) and 'hires_list_forms' (all forms) by focusing on application-specific evaluations.

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 usage context is implied: use this when you need evaluations for a given application ID. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, such as 'hires_get_evaluation' for a single evaluation. No clear exclusions or alternative guidance is provided.

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