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

Since there are no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the record is candidate-reported (not employer-verified), creates no acceptance-rate claim, and never changes organic ranking. It also mentions the $0 cost and explicit authorization requirement. This goes beyond simple 'record' and gives meaningful behavioral caveats, though it doesn't detail mutation semantics (e.g., idempotency, overwriting).

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every phrase adds value (email-verified, explicitly authorized, fixed-taxonomy, $0, receipt caveats). No filler or repetition of schema details.

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 recording tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it covers what is recorded, under what conditions (authorization), and the non-effects (no ranking change). It could mention the return value or how to obtain the application_id, but the schema already references apply_to_job. Overall, it's sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 67% (application_id and principal_authorized have descriptions, outcome only has enum). The description adds context like 'fixed-taxonomy' (aligning with the enum) and 'explicitly authorized' (matching principal_authorized), but does not explain the outcome values or additional parameter syntax. It adds some value but does not fully compensate for the missing outcome description.

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 a specific action ('Record'), a specific resource ('application outcome'), and scope ('one email-verified candidate's explicitly authorized, fixed-taxonomy application outcome'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like apply_to_job (which creates applications) and respond_to_interview_outcome (which handles interview responses), making it clear this is for recording a final/ongoing outcome.

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 context (record an outcome after a candidate authorizes it, at no cost, without affecting ranking) but does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit exclusions or guidance like 'use this instead of respond_to_interview_outcome for application-level outcomes.' The context is clear but not formally differentiated.

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