list_applications

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent), yet the description adds real behavioral context: results sort follow-ups due soonest first, candidate_home only exists for some companies (Workday), and the 'move' field must never be changed by the agent ('never change it on your own'). That constraint materially changes agent behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and routing, which is good, but the back half sprawls into an inline glossary of output fields (quiet, days, since, posting_open, long, move, advice, contacts) in a single run-on paragraph. An output schema exists, so some of that enumeration is redundant bulk.

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 tool with an output schema, the description is more than sufficient — it covers routing, sort order, and a behavioral constraint. It over-delivers by explaining return fields that the output schema already carries, which is waste rather than a gap.

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% for the single due_only parameter, so the schema fully documents it and the baseline is 3. The description hints at the due-filtering concept ('follow-ups due soonest first') but adds no syntax or default detail beyond the schema.

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+resource with scope: 'Every application (applied or a later stage) and where it stands.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from list_queued_jobs and list_jobs, so an agent can route without opening a 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('see what needs a follow-up') plus two named alternatives with their selection conditions: list_queued_jobs for not-yet-applied jobs, list_jobs for any status. Nothing left to inference.

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