ashby_get_feedback

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

With readOnlyHint=true already conveying the safe read-only nature, the description adds useful behavioral detail about the response: feedback[] with form definition and submitted values. This is helpful because there is no output schema, and it clarifies what the caller can expect.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the action first, then the use case, then the response shape. Each line contributes meaningful information with no redundancy.

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 one-parameter read-only tool, the description fully covers what the tool does, why to use it, and what the response looks like. No output schema exists, but the response summary compensates sufficiently.

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%; the single parameter application_id is already fully documented in the schema. The description does not add further parameter semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('get'), the resource ('submitted feedback/scorecards'), and the target ('an application'). This is distinct from sibling tools like ashby_get_application_details and ashby_get_application_form_submission because it explicitly centers on interviewer evaluations and scores.

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 description gives a clear usage context: 'Use this to review interviewer evaluations and scores.' It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the intended scenario is unambiguous for a simple lookup tool.

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