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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: it clarifies no external contact occurs and that a human-readable summary is returned in a `say` field. This is meaningful disclosure not present in the structured 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?

Three short sentences, action front-loaded, no filler. Each sentence contributes distinct information (action, valid states, side-effect scope, return location).

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 low-complexity mutation tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description is adequate but leaves two gaps: which identifier parameter to use, and what happens on an invalid move. The `say` return mention partly offsets the absent 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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the parameter burden. It usefully enumerates the accepted `status` values where the schema declares no enum, but it says nothing about `job_id` vs `application_id` — the most consequential ambiguity, since the agent cannot tell which identifier to supply.

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verb+resource ('Move a job on the board') and enumerates the target states (saved, applied, interview, offer, rejected, withdrawn), so the agent knows exactly what operation occurs. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like move_applicant or edit_application, so not a 5.

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?

No when-to-use statement, prerequisites, or named alternatives. The status list implies a pipeline context but the agent gets no guidance on choosing this over edit_application or get_tracker, or on when a job_id vs application_id path applies.

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