get_application_info

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

Annotations only cover readOnlyHint/openWorldHint; the description adds substantive traits beyond that — no submission, no credential handling, and the concrete shape of what comes back (apply links, contact emails, selection-process text). This removes the main ambiguity an agent would have about a job-application tool.

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?

Front-loaded and well-organized with a clear Args section; every sentence is useful. The opening clause is mildly redundant ('how to apply for a job, so the user can apply'), but nothing is wasted overall.

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 an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values — yet it still names the key returned artifacts, plus the non-submission guarantee and id-format rules. Nothing needed to call this tool correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 0% and the single parameter is bare, so the description must carry it — and it does, documenting accepted id formats ('5356737', 'O5356737') and a profesia.sk URL as valid input.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('returns the apply link(s), contact emails, and selection-process text') rather than restating the name. It immediately distinguishes itself from get_job/search_jobs by describing the distinct artifact it produces.

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?

Gives an explicit workflow: 'read the offer with get_job, draft a tailored cover letter/email, and hand it to the user to send.' It also states when NOT to reach for it ('does NOT submit anything and never handles credentials'), which is exactly the kind of exclusion an agent needs.

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