Get applicant details

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

The description discloses that "viewing an unreviewed (pending) applicant marks it as seen" — a persisted state change — while annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. That is a direct conflict on the exact property the readOnly hint is meant to guarantee, and an agent relying on the annotation could call this as a harmless peek and silently mutate applicant state. The description itself is honest; the mismatch is what forces the low score.

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?

Front-loaded with the payload contents, then parameter provenance, then the side-effect warning — a sensible ordering with no filler. The telegraphic, fragment style is dense but every clause carries information; minor deduction only for the slightly clipped phrasing that makes the side-effect note easy to skim past.

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?

With no output schema, the description does a good job enumerating return fields, and it flags the seen-marking side effect. But for a 3-parameter record fetch with a state-changing side effect, it leaves the required `post` parameter undefined and says nothing about behavior for a nonexistent applicant or invalid page_hint.

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 0%, so the description must carry the load. It explains applicant_id's source and page_hint's meaning ("the list page it was on"), which is real added value, but the required `post` parameter is never mentioned at all and no formats are given (string id shape, how post interacts with the applicant lookup).

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 ("Get one applicant") and enumerates exactly what is returned: contact info, profile fields, Jobinja profile text, star, team notes, decision, rejection reason. This is clearly a single-record fetch, distinguishable from list_applicants and from the resume/download siblings without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent: applicant_id "comes from list_applicants," and page_hint is described as an optional accelerator ("makes lookup faster"), so the agent knows how to obtain inputs and when the optional param is worth supplying. It does not, however, say when to prefer a sibling such as get_resume_text over this tool for resume content.

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