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

Annotations already declare this is a non-readOnly, openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive write, so safety is covered. The description adds the attestation trigger and that a ready-to-read summary lands in `say`, but says nothing about permissions, duplicate handling, or side effects beyond the record.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with zero filler: definition, selection condition, then the return-field note. Every sentence carries information an agent needs.

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?

Mentioning the `say` output field compensates for the absent output schema, and annotations cover the safety profile. However, with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the unexplained title/job_id/company parameters leave the call contract incomplete.

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 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must carry the load. It only clarifies `attestation` (true = applied outside Job Spotter); `title`, `job_id`, and `company` are never explained, leaving unclear whether job_id vs. title/company are alternate recording paths.

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 states a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('an application') and scopes it precisely to applications made 'outside Job Spotter', which lets an agent distinguish it from the sibling `apply` (applying through the platform) without opening either schema.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger condition: 'For when the person says they applied outside Job Spotter (attestation true)'. There is no when-not guidance and no sibling is named as an alternative, so it falls short of a 5.

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