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

Goes well beyond the annotations: discloses that a real application is sent, that off-board jobs are refused, that duplicate queueing is harmless/idempotent in effect, that already-applied-or-in-progress jobs are refused, and that a personal access token is required. This is exactly the consequential-action context an agent needs.

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-loads the action and mechanism, then lays out prerequisites and refusal rules in a logical order. Dense but each sentence carries a distinct rule; slightly long, though nothing is clearly wasteful.

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 single-param mutation tool with an output schema and annotations present, the description covers the safety profile, prerequisites, refusal conditions, and idempotency. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 one parameter and 100% schema description coverage, the schema already explains the 'id' field. The description does not add format or sourcing guidance beyond what the schema provides, so 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?

States a specific verb+resource (queue a job for auto apply via the Ocean of Jobs Chrome extension) and explains the mechanism (extension applies on next 15-minute check with the user's profile/resume). This clearly separates it from list_auto_apply_queue and remove_from_auto_apply_queue.

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?

Explicitly gives the when ('queue a job only when the user asks for it'), the prerequisites (extension installed and connected, the MCP auto-apply setting enabled, a personal access token), and the acceptable sites (Greenhouse/Ashby/Workable), instructing the agent to pick only those jobs.

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