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

Annotations already indicate this is a non-read-only (write) and non-destructive operation. The description adds the behavior of optionally attaching existing questions, which is useful, but it does not disclose other behavioral aspects like return value, side effects, or required permissions. Given the annotations cover the basic write nature, a score of 3 reflects the moderate additional transparency.

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 description is a single, tightly worded sentence that front-loads the primary action and the optional attachment behavior. There is no redundant or filler text, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

For a simple create operation with three parameters and no output schema, the description covers the core purpose and the optional attachment but omits details about 'name' and 'company_id'. It also does not hint at the response or any creation constraints, making it only partially complete for an agent to call it confidently.

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 description coverage is only 33% (only the 'questions' parameter has a description). The description clarifies that 'questions' refers to existing question IDs to attach, but it does not explain 'name' or 'company_id'. Since the schema leaves these undocumented, the description fails to compensate, leaving the agent to guess their meaning or purpose.

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 uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('application form'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like hires_create_application or hires_create_question. It also mentions the optional action of attaching existing questions, which adds specificity without ambiguity.

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?

The description implies usage (creating a form, optionally with questions) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like hires_create_application or when not to use it. There is no mention of prerequisites or context where another tool would be preferred, leaving the agent to infer from the name and sibling list.

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