ashby_get_application_details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is known. The description adds that it fires four API calls concurrently for speed, which is a useful behavioral detail (e.g., potential rate-limit impact). It also specifies the response structure, adding value beyond the 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 two sentences plus a response line, with no redundancy. It front-loads the purpose and adds essential operational detail (concurrency and response shape) without excessive length.

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-application fetch tool, the description is complete: it lists the response fields, notes the concurrent API calls, and the read-only annotation covers safety. There is no output schema, so the response description compensates adequately.

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?

The input schema fully documents application_id as a UUID to fetch, with 100% coverage. The description does not add additional parameter semantics, but none are needed since the schema is self-explanatory.

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 tool retrieves full application details and enumerates the specific components (stage history, hiring team, feedback, criteria evaluations). It also explicitly says to use it to deep-dive into a specific application, which distinguishes it from list tools like ashby_list_applications and more targeted getters like ashby_get_feedback.

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 provides a clear usage context: 'Use this to deep-dive into a specific application.' This implies when comprehensive details on a single application are needed rather than a list or a single component. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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