Greenhouse MCP

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Create an application,' implying a write operation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on conflicts, or the response format. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it safely and effectively.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Create an application for a candidate on a job') and adds necessary detail ('with optional source and referrer') without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has an output schema (which reduces the need to explain return values) but no annotations and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks crucial details like behavioral traits, parameter meanings, and usage context, making it only minimally viable for an agent to operate effectively.

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%, so the description must compensate for the lack of parameter documentation. It mentions 'optional source and referrer,' which hints at two parameters (source_id and referrer), but doesn't explain the semantics of the six parameters (e.g., what candidate_id and job_id represent, the purpose of initial_stage_id or attachments). This adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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 action ('Create an application') and specifies the target resources ('for a candidate on a job'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'submit_application' or 'post_candidate', which might have overlapping functionality in the same domain.

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 mentions optional parameters ('with optional source and referrer'), which gives some context about when to provide additional data, but it doesn't offer guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'submit_application' or 'create_candidate', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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