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

The annotations only state readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false; the description goes further and discloses the concrete side effect that opening a new applicant moves it to 'reviewing'. That is genuinely useful state-change context the agent could not derive from the annotations alone, though it doesn't say whether re-opening is a no-op or what permissions are needed.

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?

It is compact and leads with the scope, which is good. However the closing fragment 'A ready-to-read summary is in `say`' is opaque — it is unclear whether `say` is a response field, a tool, or something else — so a sentence is spent without earning its place.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so well by enumerating the returned artifacts. The only gap is the ambiguous `say` reference and the absence of any note on how this differs from get_application.

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% and the single parameter already documents its source ('from prepare_application or list_applications'). The description adds no syntax or format detail 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?

The description names the resource (one applicant) and enumerates exactly what is returned: CV, cover letter, answers, documents, timeline and the conversation. This is clear and concrete, but the verb is only implied and it never distinguishes itself from the close sibling get_application or from list_applicants, so an agent must still infer the boundary.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the alternatives (get_application, list_applicants). The phrase 'One applicant in full' hints at a single-record lookup but leaves the choice between these sibling tools entirely to inference.

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