get_candidate_applications

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden. It discloses the tool returns a list of applications with specific fields, and warns that candidate_id differs from applicationId. However, it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, mention permissions, or report potential side effects.

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 structured into clear sections: purpose, API reference, parameter, and return fields. It is slightly verbose with the API endpoint reference, but overall front-loaded 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?

Given the output schema exists, the description need not detail return values, but it does so anyway. It covers purpose, parameter, return fields, and API mapping. Missing error handling or permissions, but adequate for a simple tool.

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%, so the description adds significant value. It explains the parameter candidate_id meaning (candidate ID, not applicationId) and how to pass it (in body). This compensates fully for the lack of schema documentation.

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 clearly states the tool queries all application records and statuses for a candidate, emphasizing that one person can apply for multiple positions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_candidate_detail which returns a single candidate's info.

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 usage by stating 'one person can apply for multiple positions' and provides the corresponding API endpoint, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings or provide exclusions.

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