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 lists the data returned, which gives useful context about the tool's behavior, but omits any detail on authentication, error handling, or performance. For a simple read operation this is adequate 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-organized sentence that front-loads the primary action and resource, then lists the included data. It is concise, with no filler or redundancy.

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 get tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, what data is returned, and how to find the ID. It could mention behavior for nonexistent IDs, but that is not typically essential for a get operation.

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 schema already covers the single parameter with a clear description ('The numeric application ID'), and the tool description only repeats that it is numeric. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 retrieves a single job application by ID, listing the specific data included. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_applications (which returns many) and save_application (which writes). The verb and resource are explicit.

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 advises using list_applications to find application IDs, providing an explicit alternative for a related workflow. It implies this tool is for when you already have a specific ID, though it does not explicitly say 'use this when you need full details of one application' or mention any exclusions.

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