list_applicants

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

No annotations; description covers pagination constraints (page, count≤30) and filter behavior (status/agreement_state mutual exclusivity). Lacks details on idempotency, consistency, or side effects. Adequate but not thorough.

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 sentences efficiently convey core functionality, filters, pagination, and a usage hint. No unnecessary words; well front-loaded.

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 tool with 6 parameters and no output schema, description adequately covers filtering, pagination, and mutual exclusivity. Could mention that results are sorted or default ordering, but not essential.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining pagination limits (count≤30), conditional filtering (mutual exclusivity of status and agreement_state), and usage tip for vacancy.

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?

Description clearly states the tool lists account applicants with filtering by vacancy and/or status. It specifies pagination and gives an example use case, distinguishing it from siblings like search_applicants and get_applicant.

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?

Provides guidance on when to use (e.g., pass vacancy for vacancy-specific list) and pagination limits. Does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like search_applicants, but context suffices.

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