fetch_new_applications

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it delivers the two most important traits: it declares 'Read-only' up front and notes that include_candidate_details 'adds API calls', a cost signal. It omits auth/permission requirements and any pagination or result-limit behavior, which keeps it below 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the core definition, then the example query, then parameter notes — a sensible order. Every sentence is useful, though the return-value sentence partly duplicates the output schema.

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?

With an output schema present the description needn't explain return values, yet it still summarizes the grouping. Combined with 100% schema coverage, read-only disclosure, and clear parameter intent, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only auth and pagination context are missing.

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 meaning: it clarifies the inclusive boundary ('applications created on or after it') and gives a workflow hint for job_id ('list_jobs → match by name'). It does not address the status parameter, so it does not fully rise to 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Applications since a date, grouped by job') and frames the use case as 'the daily digest'. It is clear what the tool does, but it never names the sibling it is not (e.g. list_applications, get_activity_feed), so an agent must infer the boundary itself.

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 embedded user question ('what new applications came in since yesterday?') gives a concrete when-to-use context, and it explains the since and job_id usage. It stops short of explicit exclusions or naming an alternative tool, so it is clear context without routing guidance.

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