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

Annotations declare only readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds substantial context beyond that: paid-plan requirement, zero credit cost, asynchronous background generation with a re-call-in-a-minute pattern, and an untrusted-content warning. These are behavioral traits the annotations cannot 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?

Five front-loaded sentences with distinct payloads: purpose, ID rule, plan/cost, invocation gate, polling, trust warning. Dense but every clause earns its place; slightly packed rather than wasteful.

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, yet the description still explains the async generation flow an agent needs to correctly retrieve results. Plan, cost, ID selection, and trust posture are all covered for a moderately complex 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 0%, so the description must carry the load: it states 'supply exactly one ID' and maps the two IDs to 'owned application or active listing', establishing the mutual-exclusion rule. It stops short of naming which parameter corresponds to which target, so it doesn't fully close the gap.

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 (prepare), the artifacts produced (interview questions, talking points, company context), and the scope (one owned application or active listing). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_application or tailor_resume.

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?

Explicitly names prerequisites (paid plan, no application credits), the gating condition ('call only when the member requests preparation'), the exactly-one-ID rule, and the polling pattern for reading background-generated results. Nothing about when/when-not is left to inference.

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