hr_live_recruiting_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It says 'List' implying read-only, but does not disclose whether it is destructive, pagination behavior, or response format. With no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 very concise (one sentence). While it avoids verbosity, it lacks structure and front-loading of critical information. It is minimally adequate.

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 two parameters with no descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema (unseen), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain what applications are returned, valid filter values, or any other context needed for correct use.

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 0% and the description does not mention the parameters (job_id, status) at all. It adds no meaning beyond the schema. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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 'List Greenhouse applications' clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'Greenhouse applications'. It is specific about the domain (Greenhouse) and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hr_live_recruiting_jobs' which list jobs, but lacks detail on scope (e.g., all applications vs filtered).

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of filtering by job_id or status, nor any indication of prerequisites or context. The description provides no usage context.

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