hires_list_forms

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is a list (read-only), is paginated, and returns questions. But it does not mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error behavior, or default pagination details. For a simple read-only tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 long, front-loaded with the verb 'List,' and every word adds value. It avoids redundancy with the schema and conveys the key behavioral aspects of pagination and inclusion of questions.

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 tool's simplicity and the absence of an output schema, the description is sufficient: it explains what is returned, that it is paginated, and that it is scoped to a target company. It does not mention defaults for page/size, but this is not critical for basic use. It could have noted that company_id is optional despite the 'target company' phrasing, but overall it is complete enough.

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 100%, so each parameter (page, size, company_id) already has a basic description. The tool description adds context by saying 'paginated' and 'target company,' which ties to the parameters, but it does not provide additional format or syntax details beyond what the schema already offers.

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 action ('List') and the resource ('application forms'), and adds specificity with 'paginated' and 'returns forms with their questions for the target company.' This distinguishes it from sibling list tools like hires_list_questions or hires_list_applications.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: to list application forms for a specific company, including their questions. It implies pagination via page/size parameters. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives, such as 'use hires_list_questions to list questions separately.'

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