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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, idempotent and non-destructive, but the description adds the key side effect the agent could not otherwise know: confirmation emails go to candidates for each forwarded application while the flag is on. It also clarifies that sender configuration lives outside this tool, preventing a misconceived call.

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?

The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by relevant side-effect and scope-limit information. Three sentences, all earning their place, with no filler.

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 described. Given the simple boolean input, the description covers the meaningful unknowns: what happens while enabled and where the out-of-scope configuration lives. Only the relationship to the getter sibling is left implicit.

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 0% for the single boolean 'enabled', but the description's 'switch on or off' framing conveys the intended true/false meaning adequately. For a one-boolean toggle this compensates sufficiently, though it never names the parameter explicitly.

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 (switch on/off) applied to a named resource (the company's Apply by Email feature). It is clearly distinguishable from the read-only sibling get_apply_by_email because it describes a toggle rather than a query.

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 operating context (turning the feature on/off) and one explicit exclusion: permitted senders cannot be changed here and must be edited in the dashboard under Company settings. It stops short of naming get_apply_by_email as the way to check current state before toggling.

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