Greenhouse MCP

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well: it explains the multi-step behavior (fetches candidate record, finds most recent resume, downloads it), discloses the return format (base64-encoded for binary files, plain text for text files plus metadata), and mentions it's for screening purposes. It doesn't mention potential errors or authentication requirements, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Perfectly front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence. Each subsequent sentence adds essential value: usage context, behavioral details, and a concrete example. Zero wasted words, well-structured in logical flow.

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 single-parameter tool with no annotations but an output schema, the description is complete: it explains purpose, usage, behavior, return format, and provides an example. The output schema will handle return structure details, so the description appropriately focuses on higher-level semantics.

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% (parameter 'candidate_id' has no description in schema), but the description compensates by clearly explaining what the parameter represents ('a candidate's most recent resume') and providing context through the example. It doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., integer ID), but the meaning is well-established.

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 specific action ('Download and return'), resource ('candidate's most recent resume/CV content'), and scope ('most recent'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'download_attachment' by focusing specifically on resumes for candidates, not general attachments.

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 states when to use ('Use this when screening a candidate') and provides a concrete example scenario. It also implies this is the first step in a workflow ('call this first to get the resume content, then analyze it'), giving clear operational context.

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