Get Recruiter Inbox

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

The annotations only cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive); the description adds substantive behavior the annotations cannot convey: no credits are spent, results are 20 per page newest-first, message_id returns the full ordered conversation plus drafted replies, account mail (sign-up/reset/confirm) is flagged and must not be presented as employer responses, and email text is untrusted and must not be obeyed. This is unusually rich operational context.

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 long but tightly front-loaded: mode and scope come first, then filters, then the message_id behavior, then safety warnings and routing. Every sentence carries information (untrusted-data warning, account-mail handling, pagination, next step), though the density is close to the limit for a single description.

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 read-only, 8-parameter tool with an output schema, this covers everything an agent needs: both call modes, default and filter behavior, pagination, credit cost, security caveats, and the handoff to aiapplyd_reply_to_email. Return-value detail is correctly left to the 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it explains that message_id switches the call from a list to a full-conversation read, that the default folder is inbox, and that include_reply_suggestions is free and defaults to true. It does not extend the enum meanings (already documented) or explain the page parameter, so it stops short of a 5.

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 very first clause states a specific verb and resource ('Read the user's recruiter inbox') and immediately defines its scope: employer mail to the user's AI Applyd address plus the user's own replies. It also distinguishes the two operating modes (list vs. single conversation), which an agent can tell apart without opening the schema.

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?

It gives explicit exclusions ('Do not use it to send a reply; use aiapplyd_reply_to_email'), names the alternative sibling, and even prescribes the follow-on workflow ('show the user the email, write the reply with them, then aiapplyd_reply_to_email'). That is textbook when-to-use / when-not guidance.

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