get_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the token requirement and implies a read-only operation by listing return contents, but it doesn't explicitly state that the default response is a compact summary (though the raw parameter implies this) nor does it mention pagination, rate limits, or error behavior. For a read tool this is acceptable 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 a single, well-structured sentence that leads with the tool's purpose, then the key differentiator, then the token requirement. There is zero redundancy and every phrase contributes value.

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?

Without an output schema, the description adequately summarizes the return payload (candidate, relevant experience, funnel stage, message counters). It also covers the token prerequisite and hints at the raw option. While it doesn't describe the compact vs. raw distinction in the description itself, the schema covers that. For a two-parameter read tool, this is reasonably complete.

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% for both parameters (id and raw). The description itself adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema; it mentions 'message counters' and other card contents, but these are not parameter-level semantics. Since the schema already documents each parameter fully, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns a 'Full application card' from the negotiations endpoint and enumerates the contents (candidate, relevant experience, funnel stage, message counters). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from get_resume for screening, making it easy for an agent to know exactly what this tool does.

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 explicitly says 'prefer over get_resume for screening', giving a direct alternative and the context for choosing this tool. It also notes the required token. However, it doesn't state when not to use it (e.g., when only messages are needed) or mention other sibling tools like get_application_messages, so it's not exhaustive but adequate.

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