application_info

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation ('Get'), but doesn't clarify permissions, rate limits, error handling, or what 'full details' includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the action, scope, and required input, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks behavioral details and usage context, which are important even for simple tools. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

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 description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'applicationId' documented as a UUID. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it only reiterates the need for an ID without providing additional context like format examples or validation rules. Baseline 3 is appropriate when 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 the action ('Get full details') and resource ('for a single application by ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this as a retrieval tool for individual applications rather than bulk operations, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar tools like 'candidate_info' or 'job_info' which follow the same pattern.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'application_list' for multiple applications or 'candidate_info' for related data, nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing an application ID. Usage is implied but not articulated.

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