Get an application

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns every column plus notes and the follow-up log, and a text query matching several rows returns all matches. It does not specify no-match behavior, but otherwise adds solid context beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with what is returned, then how to locate it, then usage guidance and the sibling alternative. Every sentence contributes useful selection or invocation information without padding.

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's low complexity, two fully documented parameters, existing output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is complete enough. It covers return scope, lookup modes, multi-match behavior, workflow usage, and the relevant alternative tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents `row` as an exact sheet row number and `query` as company or role text. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining that `query` can match multiple rows and return all of them, though it does not clarify precedence if both parameters are supplied.

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 states a specific retrieval resource and scope: 'Everything recorded for one job application: every column, the notes and the follow-up log.' It also distinguishes this tool from the sibling list_applications by noting that list is for browsing many rows in brief.

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 explicitly gives a workflow condition: 'Use it before a write to show the user the current values.' It also names the alternative for a different need: 'To browse many rows in brief, use list_applications.'

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