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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and closed-world scope, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds something annotations cannot: that the tool computes a per-application follow-up suggestion, meaning it returns derived analysis rather than raw rows. It does not say what happens when nothing is stale or how the default threshold behaves at call time.

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 defining behavior, no filler. The second sentence is mildly redundant with the first but earns its place by naming the user-facing motivation.

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 read-only, one-parameter, output-schema-backed tool, the description covers what the tool returns and what 'stale' means. The only real gap is routing against sibling listing tools, which is not required for correct invocation but would improve selection.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its meaning, the default of 14, and the exclusiveMinimum constraint. The description only echoes this as 'a configurable number of days' and adds no syntax or edge-case guidance, so the schema is doing all the work.

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 and resource ('Returns job applications') plus the exact filter semantics ('haven't had a status update in a configurable number of days') and the derived output ('suggested follow-up action for each'). It never names a sibling such as get_recent_applications or search_job_applications to bound the difference, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Useful for surfacing applications the user may have forgotten about' implies the use case but gives no explicit when-to-use rules, no exclusions, and no alternative tools for other application-listing needs. An agent must infer whether to call this or get_recent_applications.

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