get_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does declare 'Read-only' plus what the response contains (stage identifiers, status, source/rejection IDs, custom fields, attachments with time-limited download URLs). It does not cover auth/permission requirements or error cases, keeping it short of a 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 purpose and read-only status, then return contents, then ID-discovery guidance. The enumerated return fields are somewhat redundant given an output schema exists, but the structure and ordering are efficient.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be re-explained, yet the description still supplies the essential workflow context (how to get an ID) and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is 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 schema already documents application_id as a Greenhouse ID (baseline 3). The description adds genuine value by explaining how to locate an application ID, which the schema does not.

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 (get), resource (a single application), and lookup key (by ID), immediately distinguishing it from list_applications and get_candidate. An agent can identify the operation 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?

Explicitly notes that users rarely know application IDs and gives a concrete path to obtain one (search_candidates_by_name -> get_candidate -> applications array), plus names screen_candidate as the alternative when a full screening package is needed. This is true when-to-use/when-to-use-something-else guidance.

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