list_application_collections

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It explicitly states the auth requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) and the 'List' verb plus 'inbox folders' framing imply a non-mutating retrieval. It could add details on pagination, output shape, or rate limits, but there is no contradictory or hidden destructive behavior implied.

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?

Two short sentences deliver purpose, workflow context, and authentication in a front-loaded way. Every sentence earns its place and there is no filler or repetition of schema information.

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?

The tool is simple (2 params, full schema descriptions, no output schema), and the description supplies the key context: what is returned (negotiation collections/employer states), the list_applications ordering, and the required token. It leaves some domain terminology ('employer states') and the exact response structure unstated, but for a basic list endpoint it is adequately 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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage: vacancy_id is described as the vacancy to list collections for, and raw is described as controlling compact vs. raw output. The free-text description adds no extra parameter detail beyond mapping the operation to a vacancy, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource ('negotiation collections and employer states for a vacancy') with the clarifying parenthetical 'inbox folders'. It also differentiates itself from the sibling list_applications by saying to start here first, so an agent can distinguish this tool without inspecting schemas.

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?

'Start here before list_applications' is explicit sequencing guidance: this tool is the entry point for the application/negotiation workflow and list_applications is the named alternative to call afterward. It tells an agent not only when to use this tool but also how to order it relative to a direct sibling.

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