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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals important guardrails: the artifact must be exact and visible, the hash requires human principal approval, the authorization is single-use, and 'candidates and agents are never charged'. It does not, however, mention side effects like irreversibility or what happens on failure, but it discloses the key behavioral constraints for a submission action.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by essential requirements. Every clause adds meaningful information without redundancy, making it highly efficient.

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 tool with 5 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides enough workflow context (phase after approval, required authorizations, no charge) to guide an agent. It could mention error handling or return behavior, but the absence of an output schema lowers the need. The key contextual information is present, making it fairly complete.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context like 'email-verified' and 'single-use' but these are already partially captured in the schema (e.g., compiled_authorization_id already says 'Short-lived single-use authorization'). The description does not significantly alter or expand the understanding of any parameter beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Submit only the exact, visible compiled artifact' for a job application, with a specific verb ('submit') and resource ('compiled artifact'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like compile_job_specific_resume and approve_compiled_application by emphasizing the final submission step after approval.

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 provides clear context for when to use the tool: after the 'email-verified human principal approves its hash', and it lists required prerequisites (single-use authorization, API key, principal_authorized=true). It implies the tool is not for initial compilation or approval, though it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it.

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