get_applications

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It implies read-only via 'Get,' but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or side effects. The mention of 'candidate pipeline data' adds minimal context.

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 uses a docstring format with Args and Returns sections, which is structured but verbose. Some parameter descriptions simply restate schema info (e.g., limit default), making it longer than necessary.

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 moderate complexity (5 parameters) and no annotations, the description covers parameters and return type but lacks usage guidance, behavioral context, and differentiation from sibling tools. Output schema exists but is not leveraged in the description.

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 must clarify parameters. It provides brief descriptions for all 5 parameters (e.g., 'Filter by specific job ID'), adding meaning beyond the schema property names. However, it omits valid values (e.g., for status) and relies on the schema for defaults.

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 'Get job applications with filtering options,' specifying the verb and resource. It does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like get_application_count or list_candidates, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., list_candidates for broader candidate data). No prerequisites, examples, or context are included.

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