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

Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: first-draft-only output, gap lines left as bracketed prompts, and that it never applies or sends and stores nothing sent. No mention of output shape or any limits, so it stops short of exhaustive.

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 purpose, then trigger phrases, the draft mechanism, and the safety note in a tight few sentences. Slightly dense but every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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 15-param, all-optional drafting tool with no output schema and safety annotations, the description covers what is produced, how unknowns are handled, and the send/store boundary. What the returned letter actually looks like is not described, a minor gap given no output schema.

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 15 optional params, so the schema already documents each field precisely. The description references concepts behind the params (CV lines, the advert, the gap line, questions) but adds no syntax or format guidance beyond the schema, so the 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?

States a specific verb+resource ("Draft a cover letter and application answers") and adds unique scope detail: built only from the person's CV lines and the advert, with gaps left as bracketed prompts. An agent can distinguish this drafting tool from siblings like jobspotter_apply_kit or jobspotter_match_cv without opening their schemas.

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 concrete trigger phrasing ("write my cover letter for this job", "help me answer these application questions"), but names no alternative sibling or an explicit when-not-to-use condition. Context is clear yet routing between it and apply_kit/match_cv is left to inference.

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