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

Annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, idempotent write, but the description adds substantial context beyond them: the visible side effect on the Tailoring tab, reversibility via declined=false, that applying later clears it, 'No quota', and named error conditions (not_found, invalid_payload with its causes). This is rich disclosure for a mutation tool.

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?

A single dense paragraph, front-loaded with the core action and then side effects, reversal, result format, quota, and errors. Every sentence carries content, though the run-on phrasing makes it slightly heavier than ideal.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description still helpfully cross-references 'declined_suggestion_indices in get_vacancy_detail'. Combined with annotations covering safety and the description covering side effects, quota, and errors, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 top-level schema exposes only an opaque 'input' ref (0% coverage per the signal), so the description must carry meaning. It explains the declined=true/false semantics and constrains suggestion_index ('index out of range, not a question, or already applied') and its needs_fact scope, though the nested schema already repeats much of the field-level meaning.

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 ('Record that the person answered no to a question suggestion (kind needs_fact) of a vacancy') and scopes it to the needs_fact kind. It also distinguishes the operation from the sibling path by noting that applying the suggestion later with a fact clears it, so an agent can tell it apart from apply_vacancy_resume_suggestions.

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 clear context for when the tool applies (recording a 'no' answer) and explains the reverse path ('declined=false takes that answer back') plus the alternative that also clears it (applying with a fact). It stops short of an explicit when-to-use/when-not statement naming the sibling tool, so it lands just below the top.

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