get_application_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a key behavioral trait: performance ('much faster than paginating') and the nature of the response (aggregated counts, auto-apply metrics). However, it does not mention potential side effects, permissions, or data freshness, which is a minor gap for a read-only aggregation tool.

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 two concise sentences. The first sentence front-loads the purpose, and the second adds a comparative advantage. There is no wasted words or redundant information.

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 aggregation tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear picture of what the tool does and when to use it. It mentions the kind of data returned (counts by status, auto-apply metrics) but does not detail the exact response structure, which is a slight gap given the lack of an output schema.

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 parameters (jobHuntId and dateOffset), and both have clear descriptions in the schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific context beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 function: 'Get aggregated stats for your job applications — total counts by status and auto-apply metrics.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool list_applications by emphasizing aggregated stats over paginated listing.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'Much faster than paginating through list_applications.' This tells the agent when to choose this tool over an alternative, based on the need for aggregate data rather than individual records. It names the alternative and the performance benefit.

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