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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It reveals key side effects and constraints: the authorization is short-lived, single-use, requires principal_authorized=true, costs nothing, and does not submit an application. This gives the agent a clear safety profile and operational boundaries beyond the schema.

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 sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main verb and resource, then packs key constraints into the first sentence, with additional conditions in the second. Every clause adds value.

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 3 parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisites, side effects, and a key exclusion (no application submission). It omits an explicit pointer to the next step (e.g., 'use apply_to_job after approval'), which would make the workflow fully clear, but the sibling list and general context make this implicit.

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 input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description adds context about the artifact hash being exact and the principal authorization condition, but this largely reinforces existing schema descriptions rather than introducing new parameter-level meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Create a short-lived, single-use authorization') and specifies the exact scope (one email-verified candidate, one artifact hash, one unchanged active job). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly noting it 'does not submit an application', making it clear this is not apply_to_job.

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 on when to use this tool: as an authorization step requiring principal_authorized=true, before submission. It implies a workflow (after compile_job_specific_resume, before apply_to_job) and explicitly states it does not submit an application, which contrasts with the sibling apply_to_job. However, it does not name alternative tools explicitly or state 'when not to use' in the most direct terms.

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