list_applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but reveals little behavioral information. It doesn't disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, whether results are paginated (though schema hints at this), rate limits, or what the return format looks like. The description adds minimal value beyond the basic operation.

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 a single, efficient sentence that communicates the core purpose and key filtering options. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration - every word serves a purpose in this compact statement.

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 list operation with 4 well-documented parameters but no annotations or output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks important context about behavior, return format, and differentiation from similar tools. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally provide more guidance about what to expect.

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 all 4 parameters. The description mentions filtering by 'job hunt or status' which aligns with two parameters, but adds no additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 'List' and resource 'job applications' with optional filtering capability. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_application' (singular) and 'update_application' (mutation), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_job_hunts' or 'list_resumes' beyond the resource type.

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 minimal guidance - it mentions optional filtering by job hunt or status, but offers no context about when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_jobs' or 'match_jobs'. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparison to sibling list operations are provided.

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