application_get_for_application_options

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The word 'Load' implies a read operation, but there is no explicit statement about idempotency, side effects, or auth requirements. The description is adequate but lacks depth on behavioral traits beyond the operation type.

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 paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then details usage and filtering. It is efficient but slightly dense; a slight split could improve readability. Still, it earns its place without wasted words.

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 three parameters in a nested body and no output schema, the description provides sufficient context for the tool's role in the permit_application flow. It covers when and how to use it, though it could optionally hint at the return structure.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds value by explaining osType values (1=Windows, etc.), clarifying searchText narrows by name, and specifying includeBuiltIn includes master-org BUILT-IN apps. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, enhancing understanding.

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 loads custom + built-in applications for permitting a file into, specifies the exact use case (when permit_application flow needs useExistingApplication: true), and distinguishes itself from sibling application_get_matching_list by naming it and contrasting the context.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (useExistingApplication: true) and provides an alternative (use application_get_matching_list for other cases). It also lists filtering parameters (osType, searchText, includeBuiltIn) with their meaning, giving clear guidance on how to invoke the tool.

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