Fetch application details, resumes and profiles

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

Discloses the asynchronous queueing nature, the side-effect of interacting with external sites (openWorldHint), the idempotent behavior via onlyMissing, the savePdf Chrome crash warning, and the pacing constraints. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint true) and provides essential expectations for a tool that takes days to complete.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers pacing, defaults, and return value. Every sentence adds information, but it is a bit long and could benefit from bullet points for scannability. Still, it is well-organized and efficient.

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 tool with 10 parameters and no output schema, it covers the essential context: what it does, how it behaves (async, paced), what it returns (count and estimate), how to track progress, and how to read results. It also notes important caveats (savePdf, profileDepth, onlyMissing). Nothing critical for an agent to call it 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?

The schema already covers 90% of parameters with descriptions, so the description doesn't need to repeat them. It adds global context (pacing, defaults, interaction between includeProfile and profileMinMustHave) that enriches parameter interpretation. However, it doesn't explicitly explain the profileMinMustHave logic in the description, relying on the schema, so it's a slight gap.

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 ('Queue the deep fetch') and resource ('applicants'), enumerates the exact actions (open application page, download resume, visit LinkedIn profile), and explicitly names the sibling tool applicants_fetch_profiles as the alternative for later profile-only fetches. This unambiguously distinguishes it from related tools.

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 explicit guidance: it describes the pacing (one at a time, working hours, daily caps), the default behavior (only missing), and when to defer profile fetching via profileMinMustHave and applicants_fetch_profiles. It also directs users to queue_status for tracking and applicants_list/applicant_get/export for reading results, covering both usage and alternatives.

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