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

Adds rich context beyond the annotations: asynchronous start semantics, ~1 minute runtime, a 2-credit cost requiring user confirmation, the follow-up call needed to retrieve results, and an explicit statement that it does not apply for the job. These are exactly the behavioral traits annotations cannot convey.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then cost/confirmation, timing and follow-up, and finally the non-submission clarification. Every sentence carries actionable information with no filler.

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 one-parameter async tool with no output schema, it covers the essentials: what starts, cost, confirmation, timing, and the follow-up retrieval call. The only meaningful gap is provenance/format of job_id.

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 coverage is 0% for the single job_id parameter, so the description must compensate. It implies scoping to one job ('for one job') and mentions the returned application_id, but never explains where job_id comes from (e.g., add_job or get_job) or its format. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: tailoring a CV and writing a cover letter for exactly one job, grounded in real experience. It also explicitly disclaims application submission, distinguishing it from siblings like mark_application_submitted. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.

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?

Gives clear context: confirm with the user first because it costs 2 AI credits, then call get_application with the returned id after about a minute. It doesn't name competing siblings such as draft_application_answers or check_cv_keywords, but the when-to-use condition is clear.

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