List job applications

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

No annotations provided. The description only states 'lists' without disclosing whether it is read-only, safe, or any rate limits. For a simple list tool, this is minimally acceptable but lacks behavioral context.

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?

Single sentence, perfectly front-loaded with verb and resource. No extraneous words. Every part is necessary.

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 optional parameters, no output schema), the description is adequate. It could mention return format or ordering, but for a listing tool it covers the essential functionality.

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% and each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, meeting baseline expectations.

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?

Clearly states verb 'lists' and resource 'tracked job applications', and explicitly mentions optional filters by status and deadline. Distinguishes from sibling tools add_application and update_status by being a read-only listing tool.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The context implies use for viewing applications, but no exclusions or when-not-to-use advice is given.

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