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

Annotations already signal destructive/non-idempotent/open-world, and the description adds the concrete effects: tailors CV and cover letter, answers employer questions, and SUBMITS in the person's name. It also discloses preconditions (saved CV, confirmed email, active plan), plan accounting, dry_run behavior, and the need to poll status.

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?

Front-loads the trigger and packs prerequisites, effects, dry-run behavior, and follow-up into five sentences with no filler. The dense phrasing is appropriate for a destructive action tool.

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?

Complete for a no-output-schema action tool: it names the preparatory get_public_job call, confirmation requirement, preconditions, dry-run mode, and the polling sibling. Nothing needed to call it correctly is 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?

Schema coverage is 50%; public_id's format is already documented in the schema, while dry_run has no schema description. The description compensates for dry_run by explaining dry_run=true prepares everything and sends nothing, which is material for correct invocation.

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 action (apply) and target (Keywordise public job by id), with concrete triggers and scope ('that ONE job'). It distinguishes the public-job path from other apply siblings by naming keywordise.com/jobs and get_public_job, though it does not explicitly call out apply_to_live_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?

Gives literal trigger phrases and context ('when the person asks to apply to a job from keywordise.com/jobs'), plus prerequisites and confirmation flow. It does not state when not to use this versus apply_to_live_job or start_apply_run, so it is clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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