get_applicant

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It states the tool returns 'Applicant details as dictionary,' which is a useful behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose error handling (e.g., behavior for non-existent IDs), authorization needs, or side effects (though 'Get' implies read-only). This is acceptable for such a simple tool but lacks deeper disclosure.

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 brief, well-structured with Args and Returns sections, and contains no redundant information. It matches the simplicity of the tool.

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 (one parameter, output schema available), the description covers the core purpose and return format. However, it lacks any guidance on usage context or error behavior, and the absence of annotations leaves some uncertainty about operational constraints. Overall, it is adequately complete for a simple getter.

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 schema declares applicant_id as a required integer with no description. The description adds the meaning 'The applicant ID,' which is minimal given the self-explanatory parameter name. It does not provide any additional context such as where to find the ID or format expectations, so it barely compensates for the 0% schema description coverage.

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 uses the specific verb 'Get' with the resource 'applicant' and specifies retrieval by ID, clearly distinguishing it from list_applicants (collection) and create_applicant/update_applicant (mutations).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus list_applicants or other related tools, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. It relies entirely on the tool name and conventional 'get-by-ID' pattern.

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