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

Annotations are empty, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'apply for a job' without mentioning side effects such as creating an application record, requiring authentication, or whether the action is reversible. The verb 'apply' implies a mutation but no details are given.

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 is a single, concise sentence that communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary words or repetition. It is front-loaded with the main action and parameters.

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 tool is simple with only two required parameters and no output schema, so the description is minimally viable. However, it lacks behavioral context such as prerequisites (e.g., having a resume) or expected outcome, which would be helpful given the absence of annotations. Adequate but with clear 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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (jobId and jobKind), covering 100% of the schema. The description merely restates these in prose ('specify job ID and job type') without adding further semantic detail, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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: applying for a job with specific job ID and job type. It uses a specific verb ('apply') and resource ('job'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like search-jobs or add-job-want, which serve different purposes.

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 when to use the tool: when a user wants to apply for a job by providing job ID and job type. It does not mention explicit alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over search or resume-editing siblings.

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