Get one applicant

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

Annotations already signal readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds non-obvious behavioral details: resume text is clipped to maxChars, email/phone appear only when shared, and the source is a local database only. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Two compact sentences front-load the core purpose and then enumerate the delivered data. Every phrase earns its place, and the qualifiers 'local,' 'one applicant,' 'when shared,' and 'clipped to maxChars' are meaningful rather than filler.

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 read-only, idempotent tool with rich annotations, the description covers the return contents, data source, and clipping behavior. However, with no output schema and low parameter coverage, the includeProfile/includeResumeText switches and the exact response shape are left somewhat to inference.

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 only 25%, and the description compensates only for maxChars via 'clipped to maxChars.' It leaves applicationId's role implicit and does not explain the effect of includeProfile or includeResumeText, relying on parameter names alone. This is insufficient for a required string ID and two behavior-controlling booleans.

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 one applicant's full local record, enumerating the exact content categories (list fields, application details, resume text, LinkedIn profile). The added 'Local database only' scoping distinguishes it from fetch/sync siblings such as applicants_fetch_profiles and applicants_fetch_details.

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?

Provides clear context: it is the local, single-applicant, full-record read. The 'Local database only' qualifier alerts the agent not to expect remote data and implies fetch/sync tools for non-local sources, but the description does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions.

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