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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: sort order, what is omitted, the exact return envelope {today, applications}, and the meaning of lastUpdate, updateCount, holds, noResponse, keptUntil, and undated-entry sorting. It even documents the empty-list case.

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 ordering, then return details. It is dense and slightly run-on in the field-definition clause, but nearly every sentence carries information an agent needs given the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining returns, and it does so field by field, including edge cases (undated entries, empty list). Nothing an agent needs to interpret the response is missing.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline is 4. The description instead spends its space on return-value semantics, which is appropriate here.

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 ('List the person's kept job applications') plus ordering ('newest first') and explicit exclusions ('without their log of updates or the texts of the posting, CV and letter'). This clearly separates it from the singular get_career_application and from save_career_applications.

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 use cases: 'questions about where their applications stand and finding one by company or role.' It does not explicitly name when to prefer a sibling (e.g., get_career_application for a single entry), so it stops short of full routing guidance.

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