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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds meaningful nuance by disclosing that it maps only safe profile values, reserves eligibility/EEO/files/signature/submit for the human, and requires per-field readback before reporting staged. This aligns with the annotations and gives the agent a clear safety model.

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?

Two dense sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence efficiently adds the safety boundaries and verification requirement.

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?

The description covers the core behavior, safety boundaries, and verification gate, which is helped by the output schema and annotations. However, with 8 optional parameters and no schema descriptions, it leaves meaningful gaps around the send/apply/submit flags and how readbacks should be structured.

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%, so the description must compensate, but it only maps conceptually to fields like schema_receipt, profile_values, and readbacks. The boolean flags send/apply/submit and tenant_id are never explained, leaving the agent to guess their values and effects.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Build or verify a keyboard-event ATS fill plan from a complete form schema.' It conveys a distinct function, and the mention of reserved human-only fields and readback further differentiates it from generic receipt tools, though it does not explicitly name a sibling tool.

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 implies the right context: use when you have a complete form schema and need a staged fill plan with sensitive fields reserved for the human. It does not explicitly say when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as talent_scout_form_schema_receipt.

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