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. It mentions the optional inclusion of job listing details, which adds some behavioral context. However, it lacks information on permissions needed, error handling (e.g., invalid ID), response format, or rate limits, which are important for a read operation tool.

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 with zero waste: the first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the optional parameter's effect. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally complete for a simple read tool. It covers the purpose and parameter effect, but lacks details on behavioral aspects like response structure or error conditions, which could be important for an agent to use 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('id' and 'includeJobListing'). The description adds marginal value by mentioning the optional inclusion of job listing details, but does not provide additional semantics beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 verb ('Get details') and resource ('specific job application by ID'), and distinguishes it from siblings like 'list_applications' (which lists multiple) or 'get_application_stats' (which provides aggregated data). It specifies the exact scope of retrieval.

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 implies usage when details of a single application are needed, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_applications' for multiple applications or 'get_application_stats' for aggregated metrics. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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