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

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds the crucial behavioral consequence beyond them: answering the last open question can cause NeverApply to resume and submit the application to the employer, under a specific permission basis. It also discloses the required member-consent step and that file uploads cannot go through this 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?

The critical constraint and the submission side effect are front-loaded, and nearly every sentence adds rules an agent cannot infer. Some sentences are run-on and would benefit from splitting, but there is little outright 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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be described, and the description fills the remaining gaps: input provenance, the submission side effect, the consent prerequisite, and the escape hatches for choice-less questions and uploads. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this safely 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?

Schema coverage is only 33%, so the description carries real weight here: it clarifies that choices must be authoritative choice IDs from get_application and that review_version must match that call's current version. run_id is never explained, leaving one of three parameters undocumented in both places.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('Save only the facts-vault choice IDs currently offered by get_application, with its review_version') and constrains the input ('Never accepts free-text answers'). It also ties the tool to named siblings (get_application, approve_application), so an agent can place it in the workflow 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?

It gives explicit when/when-not guidance: supply all outstanding questions at once, use the hosted application page or update a fact when no choice is offered, and use approve_application for a held run. It also states the prerequisite approval conversation before the final answering call, which is exactly the routing information an agent needs.

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