Get Application

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds the return payload (customized_json plus joined job), which is useful given no output schema, but says nothing about behavior for a missing or invalid ID or any auth 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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with what is retrieved and what is returned; no filler or restatement of the name.

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 single-entity read tool with one param and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient — it characterizes the return value and points at a related comparison tool. The only real omission is how to obtain the application_id.

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% and the description says nothing about application_id — neither its format nor that it originates from list_applications/propose_application. With only one parameter this is a small gap, but the description contributes no parameter meaning at all.

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 application) and enumerates the payload: the tailored resume (customized_json) and the joined job. That payload description distinguishes it meaningfully from list_applications and from edit/update_application, though it doesn't contrast with other single-entity getters like get_proposal.

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 sentence 'Use compare_ats for before/after scores' routes the agent on an adjacent need, but there is no explicit statement of when to call this tool versus get_application-adjacent siblings (get_proposal, get_final_review) or where the application_id comes from. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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