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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: nothing is invented, output derives from the person's own CV and saved answers, the cover letter contains [bracketed] parts the user must fill, and critically 'Sends nothing' clarifies the non-submitting semantics that the readOnlyHint=false/destructiveHint=false pair alone leaves ambiguous. It also reports it says how the application will be sent and what is still 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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then efficient supporting clauses. Short high-value sentences like 'Sends nothing.' and the pointer to the `say` summary earn their place. Slightly dense but no filler.

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?

Given no output schema, the description usefully names the `say` summary location and specifies what is and isn't produced, which is strong for a no-required-param mutation tool. The remaining gap is job identification across three untyped params, so an agent still cannot tell how the target job is supplied.

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?

With only 40% schema coverage and 5 parameters, the description must compensate, but it clarifies none of the job-identification parameters (url, job_id, post_id) and never explains how they relate or when each should be used. It loosely implies the default tailored CV variant ('CV reordered for the job') and the saved-answers source, but url/job_id/post_id remain opaque in both description and schema.

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 and resource (prepare an application) and enumerates the exact artifacts produced: a CV reordered for the job, a cover letter draft, and answers. The clauses 'for one job' and 'Sends nothing' implicitly distinguish it from siblings like apply (which sends) and prepare_several (which handles more than one).

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?

The description establishes clear context ('Builds the materials for one job', 'Sends nothing'), which tells the agent this is a preparation step that does not submit anything, contrasting with apply. It stops short of explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance such as naming the alternative tool or listing prerequisites like having a saved CV or job.

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