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

Discloses a non-obvious behavioral trait: invalid transitions are silently ignored by the API, so the caller must validate. It also clarifies that REJECTED records a company rejection internally, and that UNKNOWN blocks all transitions — none of which the annotations (readOnly=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false) 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 the critical warning, then status meanings, then the transition table — a sensible order. The transition matrix is long but each line is load-bearing; the duplicated withdrawal warning is the only mild redundancy.

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 mutation tool with three required params, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description supplies everything an agent needs: valid inputs, transition rules, silent-failure behavior, and routing to the alternative tool.

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 enums already constrain status values, so the schema carries most weight. The description nonetheless adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains why currentStatus exists (transition validation) and clarifies the semantic distinction between REJECTED and candidate withdrawal.

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 ('Updates the status of a job application by its UUID') and immediately contrasts itself with the sibling toggle_job_application_interest. An agent can distinguish this tool from the withdrawal path without opening the 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?

Opens with an explicit STOP condition listing trigger phrases, names the alternative tool, and warns against using REJECTED as a proxy. It also spells out valid source→target transitions, which is exactly the when-to-use guidance an agent needs.

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