List Job Applications

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It does disclose return contents ('applicant details, stage, source, flags and custom form answers'), but omits any mention of side effects, auth requirements, or pagination behavior. For a read-only list tool, 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?

Two sentences, zero waste. The first sentence states the core functionality and an important limitation; the second lists the return contents. Every word earns its place.

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 description covers the essential context: what the tool does, the key constraint, and what the response includes. With a rich schema and no output schema, it does not need to list every filter parameter. Missing details like pagination are already in the schema, so the description is complete enough for a list 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the key constraint that job_id is required (by stating 'for a specific job listing'), but this is already encoded in the required array. No additional parameter meaning is provided 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's verb ('Get applications') and resource ('for a specific job listing'), immediately distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_application (single application) and list_applicants. The parenthetical constraint that the API cannot list across all jobs further clarifies its scope.

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 explicitly scopes usage to a specific job listing and warns that cross-job listing is not supported, providing context for when this tool is appropriate. However, it does not name alternatives like get_application for single applications, so the guidance is not fully explicit.

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