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

Annotations already indicate `destructiveHint: true` and `readOnlyHint: false`. The description adds specific changes beyond annotations: the status becomes active and rejected_at is cleared. No contradiction; it gives precise state transition information.

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?

It is one short, front-loaded sentence with a colon separating the action from its effects. There is no filler, and each phrase adds meaningful information.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it tells exactly what it does, the visible effect on status and timestamp, and annotations cover the destructive nature. No critical information 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?

The schema describes `include` and the required `id` is understandable from the tool name and description ('application ID'). The description itself does not add extra parameter semantics, but for only two parameters this minimal coverage is acceptable.

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 'reopen' and names the resource (rejected application) plus its concrete effects ('status returns to active', 'rejected_at is cleared'). This clearly distinguishes it from generic update and opposite of reject.

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 the tool should be used when an application has been rejected and needs to be made active again, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives like `hires_update_application` or state when not to use this tool. The context is clear but the guidance is more implicit than explicit.

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