hs_apply

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that external-apply jobs redirect and cannot be submitted, but does not detail post-submission behavior (e.g., success/failure response). Still, the key behavioral constraint is well communicated.

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 concise sentences plus a clear note. No filler; every sentence earns its place. Front-loaded with the main action and immediately follows with crucial usage guidance.

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 an output schema exists (not shown), the description need not detail return values. It covers prerequisites and limitations well for a 2-parameter tool. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on successful submission.

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%, but the description adds value by explaining that document_ids are for attachments (resume/cover letter) and how to retrieve them. It reinforces job_id as mandatory and the prerequisite check.

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 'Submit a Handshake application for a job,' specifying the verb and resource. It also distinguishes from sibling tools like hs_get_applications and hs_withdraw_application by focusing on submission.

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 instructs to call hs_get_job first to check application_method, and warns that external-apply jobs cannot be submitted here. Also suggests using hs_get_documents to retrieve document_ids, providing clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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