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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value beyond that by disclosing the semantics of the returned status — 'Only the status completed means it was submitted' — which prevents an agent from misreading partial states as submission.

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 sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the status caveat. The 'Jobs —' prefix duplicates the title and adds nothing, which is the only wasted token.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. The blocking gap is the undocumented session_id: for a single-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, an agent has no guidance on how to acquire the required input, which is the one thing it must get right to call the tool.

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% and the single required parameter session_id has no description in either the schema or the description text. The description never explains what a session_id is, where to obtain it, or whether it is a job-application session or a chat session — leaving the only input undocumented.

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 names a specific verb (Check) and resource (an application Worklittle is filling out) and enumerates what is returned: status, filled form fields, and a live view link. That scope — a single in-flight application — implicitly separates it from list_active_applications and submit_application, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

Usage is implied by the phrase 'an application Worklittle is filling out,' which suggests polling an application currently in progress. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no routing to alternatives such as list_active_applications (for many) or steer_application (to change direction).

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