Applications worth chasing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden itself. It discloses the key behaviors: only unresponsive and unchased applications are included, rejection responses count, and results are sorted by longest wait first. It implies a read-only list operation, though it does not detail output fields, pagination, or access requirements.

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?

One dense sentence front-loads the purpose, then adds ordering, then exclusion rules. Every clause earns its place and there is no redundant or filler language.

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 simple tool with one optional, fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is complete enough for correct invocation. It specifies what is listed, the ordering, and the exact filter conditions, leaving no critical gap for an agent to guess at.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds operational meaning by tying afterDays to 'gone quiet' and to the 'window' for already-chased applications, helping clarify the parameter's real-world effect beyond the schema's single-line description.

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 states a specific operation: listing roles applied to that have gone quiet, with explicit ordering ('longest wait first') and clear exclusion criteria. This is far more specific than the generic title and distinguishes the tool from the mutation-focused sibling tools like record-follow-up and record-response.

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 clearly communicates when this tool is appropriate: return applications with no response and no prior chase within the window. It gives solid inclusion/exclusion criteria, but it never names alternative tools or explicitly says 'use this instead of X', so it stops short of a 5.

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