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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context beyond that: a tracked 'applied' stage reflects user-reported status rather than a verified delivery, which materially changes how an agent should trust the data.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with what is returned, followed by the caveat. No filler, though 'drafts and next actions' is left undefined and costs a little precision.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and a fully documented two-parameter schema, so little is required. However, with no output schema, the description only gestures at the return shape ('records, drafts and next actions') without indicating whether these are separate sections or per-record fields, leaving an agent unsure what to expect back.

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 100%, with limit and offset both documented including ranges and the next_offset pattern, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds nothing about how pagination interacts with the three listed record categories; baseline 3 applies.

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?

Uses a specific verb (List) with a specific resource (the connected user's application records, drafts and next actions), scoping it to the connected user. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from list_saved_jobs or list_documents, so the agent must infer that 'application records' differ from saved jobs.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus list_saved_jobs or get_document, nor any prerequisite or exclusion guidance. The second sentence clarifies how to interpret a field, not when to invoke the tool.

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