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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-readonly and non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral details: status defaults differ by method ('in_progress for apply / apply_with_ai, applied for api') and maps UI actions to statuses. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 deliver a complete overview: purpose first, then status mapping and defaults. No filler or redundancy; every clause adds actionable information.

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 and annotations, the description covers the core behavior well. However, it does not explain where job_title and company_name come from (likely from search_jobs/get_job_details), nor does it clarify idempotency or distinguish when to use this tool versus apply_for_job. These gaps leave some ambiguity for an agent deciding between tools.

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 coverage is 67%: job_id, method, status, and apply_url have descriptions, but required job_title and company_name lack descriptions. The description enhances the semantics of status and method via default rules, but it does not compensate for the undocumented required fields or add meaning to apply_url beyond its name.

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 uses a specific verb ('Record') and resource ('job') and enumerates the exact actions covered: saved, applied, clicked Apply, or skipped. It also clarifies semantic mappings for status values, making the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from siblings like apply_for_job.

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 gives concrete guidance on when to use each status ('saved for heart/save and skipped for deck Skip') and explains default behavior based on method. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling apply_for_job, but the verb 'Record' implicitly distinguishes the tracking role from actual application submission.

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