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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true; the description earns that flag by disclosing exactly what is destroyed ('job_description REPLACES the previously saved description — pass the full text, not a diff') and what is preserved ('omitting a field leaves it unchanged'). It also states the validation constraint that at least one field is required, which the annotations cannot convey.

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 what it does, then triggers, then exclusions, then behavioural rules — a clean decision-first structure. Every sentence carries information the agent needs; nothing is restated from the schema or name.

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?

Three parameters, all documented; an output schema exists so return values need no explanation; annotations cover safety. The description fills the remaining gaps (trigger conditions, sibling routing, replace semantics) so an agent can call this correctly without further exploration.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: the mutual-requirement (at least one of source_url or job_description) and the full-text-not-diff instruction for job_description, which tells the agent how to format the value, not just what it is.

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 (enrich/correct) and resource (an existing job application's saved posting details) plus the exact fields touched. It explicitly bounds scope ('only touches source_url and job_description'), which separates it from the many status/interest siblings.

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 concrete triggering situations (user finds the JD later, wants to add the link, wants to correct the description) and two explicit 'Do NOT use' exclusions that name the correct alternative tools (update_job_application_status, toggle_job_application_interest). 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.