Export applicants to CSV / JSON

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

The annotations indicate a non-read-only, non-idempotent operation, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it writes to disk, returns the path, streams large result sets, uses an Excel-friendly UTF-8 BOM for CSV, and guards against formula injection. These are useful traits beyond what the structured annotations provide.

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?

Three tightly written sentences, each adding a distinct useful fact: core behavior, scalability/streaming, and CSV safety. The most important information is front-loaded and there is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

The definition covers the essential invocation contract: what is exported, optional job filtering, supported formats, destination, and the return value. The main gap is parameter-level detail for includeResumeText and path behavior, but the schema partially covers outPath and includeProfile, so an agent can still call the tool correctly with reasonable 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 40%, and the description only loosely covers jobId ('optionally one job') and format ('CSV, JSON or JSONL'). It does not explain includeResumeText, clarify includeProfile beyond its schema note, or describe outPath behavior. With low schema coverage, the description should compensate but leaves several parameters under-documented.

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 names a specific action ('Write all stored applicants ... to a file on disk and return the path'), a clear resource (applicants), and supported formats (CSV, JSON, JSONL). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like applicants_list or applicants_fetch_details, which retrieve data rather than export to a file.

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 implies the main use case: creating a full or job-filtered export file, and notes that streaming makes it suitable for thousands of rows. However, it does not explicitly explain when to prefer this over applicants_fetch_details, applicants_list, or other retrieval tools, nor does it state any exclusions or prerequisites.

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