mcp-humanpages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the tool returns applicant profiles with specific attributes, which is useful, but it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements (implied by 'agent_key' but not stated), rate limits, pagination, or error handling. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded, consisting of two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose and usage context without any wasted words. Every sentence adds value, making it concise and well-structured.

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 moderate complexity (a read operation with 2 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and output content but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, errors, or return format. This is adequate for basic understanding but has clear gaps that could hinder an agent's effective use.

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 has 100% description coverage, with both parameters ('listing_id' and 'agent_key') documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any additional meaning or context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or usage tips. According to the rules, with high schema coverage (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('View') and resource ('applications for a listing you created'), and it distinguishes the output content (applicant profiles with skills, location, reputation, and pitch message). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_listing' or 'get_listings', which focus on listings rather than applications, so it doesn't fully achieve sibling differentiation.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool ('to evaluate candidates before making an offer'), which implies a workflow step. It doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer usage in candidate evaluation scenarios.

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