list_application_collections

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the authentication requirement (HH_ACCESS_TOKEN) and the kind of data returned. However, it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, side-effect absence, rate limits, or response shape. Some transparency is present, but not comprehensive.

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 compact and front-loaded, with the core purpose stated first. The additional sentences about list_applications, employer_states, and auth each add value. It is slightly list-like but remains efficient and scannable.

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 simple list-style tool with no output schema, the description provides enough information to understand what will be returned and how it fits into the broader workflow. It could be improved by naming the response structure or field names, but it covers the essential context for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents vacancy_id and raw well. The description adds workflow context about sub-collection ids but does not need to explain parameter meanings further. Baseline 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 is specific about what the tool returns: vacancy application funnel counters per stage and sub-stage, unread counts, and employer_states. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling list_applications by explaining that sub-collection ids from this tool feed into 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 gives explicit workflow guidance: 'Start here before list_applications' and notes that sub-collection ids are inputs for list_applications. It does not list exclusions or alternatives beyond list_applications, but the sequencing guidance is clear enough for an agent to know when to call it.

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