application_answers

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, or what the return format looks like. The implication that it returns static answers is weak and not an explicit behavioral disclosure.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loading the data categories and then the parameter behavior. It is compact with no wasted words, though the lack of an explicit verb makes it slightly less immediately clear. Overall, it is appropriately sized for a simple tool.

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 tool with no annotations or output schema, the description covers the parameter behavior and the data categories. However, it omits any mention of read-only status, return format, or error handling, which would be valuable given the absence of structured metadata. It is minimally adequate but leaves clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that the optional 'section' parameter filters results and that omitting it returns everything. It also lists the likely section values (contact, work_authorization, etc.), effectively documenting the parameter's domain. A small gap remains because it does not explicitly say those strings are the accepted values.

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 states the resource clearly: standard answers for application forms, and lists the categories (contact, work_authorization, etc.). It does not use an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve', but the purpose is readily inferable and specific. No sibling differentiation is provided, which keeps it at a 4.

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 only guidance is 'Omit section for everything,' which explains parameter usage but not when to choose this tool over alternatives. There is no context about when this tool is appropriate versus the version-related siblings. The tool's usage is implied by its domain but never stated.

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