get_application

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' (a safety trait) and implies this tool does not provide the complete screening package (resume, location) by directing to screen_candidate. However, it does not mention permissions, error behavior, or other potential side effects, so it falls short of a 5.

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 three sentences, each earning its place: purpose, ID discovery workaround, and alternative tool recommendation. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and contains no fluff.

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 single-get tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the core action, provides a path to obtain the required ID, and points to a richer alternative. Return value details are handled by the output schema, so no further explanation is needed.

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% and the parameter description already states 'Greenhouse application ID'. The description adds little beyond the word 'ID' in 'Get a single application by ID', which is redundant. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 'Get a single application by ID. Read-only.' which is a specific verb+resource. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_applications and screen_candidate by emphasizing the single-record nature and pointing to screen_candidate for a broader screening package.

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 guidance: it acknowledges users rarely know IDs, provides a discovery workflow (search_candidates_by_name → get_candidate → applications array), and recommends screen_candidate for full screening. This goes beyond mere context and establishes clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use conditions.

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