list_applications

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

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does so explicitly: the `applications` array with id/status/days_since_update, per-status counts, and the non-obvious definition of `waiting` (open, no news for 14+ days). The closing 'Read-only' partly restates readOnlyHint but the return semantics are genuinely additive.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose then usage then return shape. No filler; each clause (trigger, sibling routing, return fields, `waiting` definition) 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?

For a read-only, two-optional-param list tool with no output schema, the description supplies everything an agent needs: when to call it, what it returns, and the meaning of the derived `waiting` field. Nothing material is missing.

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 description coverage is 100% for both `status` (enum list, default all) and `profile` (default path resolution), so the schema already does the work. The prose only references status indirectly via the per-status counts and adds no filtering syntax or default behavior beyond it.

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?

Names a specific verb+resource ('List the person's job applications') and adds scope/detail (sort order 'most recently updated first'). It clearly contrasts against the write-path sibling log_application, so an agent can distinguish it without opening schemas.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('when they ask how their search is going or which application to follow up') and names the alternative ('log_application records changes'), making the read-vs-write split unambiguous.

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