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

The description adds critical behavioral traits not covered by the annotations, such as the financial cost ('costs one credit'), the lack of external data sharing ('sends nothing to the employer'), and the time sensitivity of the token ('works once, for five minutes').

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?

While the instructions are detailed, they are organized logically (Purpose -> Cost/Safety -> Step 1 -> Step 2), ensuring that complex workflow information is presented efficiently without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given that the tool requires a state-machine approach (two sequential calls), the description provides all necessary context regarding preconditions, costs, security limits (token validity), and the required multi-step orchestration.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description is critical. It explains the functional necessity of the `confirmation_token` parameter—that it triggers a state change from token-acquisition to final preparation—making the schema requirements actionable.

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 defines the action (prepare application) and the result (generated resume and cover letter). It specifies that the application relates to a caller's matched job, distinguishing it from simpler list or get functions.

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 tool mandates a multi-step workflow, which is laid out perfectly: first call without a token to receive the token, then second call with the token only after user consent. This removes all ambiguity about the calling sequence.

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