get_application

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the optional inclusion of job listing details, which is a behavioral aspect, but omits response shape, error behavior, and permission requirements. 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?

Single sentence with a clear front-loaded verb-resource structure. The optional flag is integrated compactly. Every sentence/word earns its place; no 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 2-param simple getter with no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It implies a return of application details and covers the main variant (with/without job listing). Sibling tool names add context, though the description alone could clarify the return type explicitly.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The tool description mentions 'full job listing' and 'etc.', adding little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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?

Description uses specific verb 'Get' with resource 'specific job application by ID', clearly indicating a single-record read. It distinguishes from siblings like list_applications (list) and get_job (job listing), making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'by ID' implies retrieval of one application, which distinguishes it from list_applications. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context signals (sibling tools) and the optional includeJobListing parameter provide clear usage context.

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