get_application_package

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: the returned posting is a frozen snapshot ('as it read then'), which tells the agent this is not live data and that a file artifact (posting.md) exists. It does not describe the multi-match error path, though the schema does.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the payload contents followed by the routing guidance, with no filler. The first sentence is a dense list, but every element is load-bearing.

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 one well-documented parameter, no output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies precisely what is missing: the shape of the return payload and the frozen-snapshot semantics. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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 100% and the single 'key' parameter is documented in detail there (formats, fallback to company name, multi-match behavior). The description adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 enumerates exactly what the tool returns (files with their folder, form answers, note, the frozen posting.md) and frames it as the application package snapshot. It explicitly differentiates itself from get_interview_prep and get_job, so an agent can pick it 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?

'Use it to check exactly what was sent' states the positive trigger, and the two named alternatives each come with their own condition ('full prep sheet' -> get_interview_prep, 'posting and fit' -> get_job). This is explicit when/when-not/alternative routing.

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