list_applications

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does: result ordering, the applied-or-later scope, and the meaning of a non-obvious field (candidate_home is the company's own status page, only present for some systems like Workday). That last point is genuine added value, though no pagination or volume behavior is disclosed.

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?

Three dense clauses with no filler; the purpose and ordering lead, routing to siblings follows. The candidate_home clause is slightly tangential but earns its place by defining an otherwise opaque field.

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-parameter read-only list tool with an output schema and full annotation coverage, this covers purpose, routing, ordering and one field's semantics. Little is missing; only the due_only behavior and result-size expectations go unaddressed, and the output schema absorbs most of that burden.

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% and the single parameter due_only is fully described there, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description hints at follow-up timing but does not explain what due_only actually narrows the result to. 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?

States a specific resource ('every application ... and where it stands') with scope (applied or a later stage) and ordering (follow-ups due soonest first). It even disambiguates against the two nearest siblings, so an agent can distinguish it from list_queued_jobs and list_jobs 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 gives the trigger ('Use it to see what needs a follow-up') and names both alternatives with the condition that selects each: list_queued_jobs for not-yet-applied roles, list_jobs for any status. Nothing is left to inference.

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