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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses idempotency, the requirement of an evaluated interview, and various error conditions (gate statuses, NOT_FOUND). This goes beyond just stating the action and provides useful behavioral insight.

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?

The description consists of three concise sentences that cover purpose, preconditions, idempotency, and error behaviors. Every sentence earns its place; there is no redundant or vague phrasing.

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 the presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), the description appropriately avoids explaining return values. It covers preconditions, idempotency, and all relevant error cases, making it fully adequate for an agent to determine when and how to use the tool. The tool's complexity is low, and the description leaves no gaps.

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?

The schema has only 2 parameters with 50% description coverage (only apiKey has a description). The description adds meaning to 'jobId' by specifying it must correspond to a published job. It also implies the context of reusing an evaluated interview, which relates to the apiKey for authentication. This adds value beyond what the schema alone conveys.

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 clearly states the action: 'Apply the candidate to a PUBLISHED job, reusing their evaluated profile interview as evidence.' This is a specific verb+resource combination that uniquely identifies the tool among siblings like 'candidate.withdraw_application' or 'employer.invite_candidate'.

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 explicitly lists preconditions (published job, completed and evaluated interview) and the resulting error codes (GATE_LOCKED, GATE_EVALUATING, GATE_FAILED). It also notes idempotency and the reuse of existing applications. While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use it or compare with alternatives, the context is clear enough for the agent to understand when it is appropriate.

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