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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the non-obvious behavioral fact that history is append-only and grows with each call, which neatly explains the idempotentHint=false annotation and tells the agent polling is safe and progressive. It stops short of describing error behavior for an unknown or invalid slug.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the returned payload, with the polling tip as a trailing clause. There is no filler or repetition of the title beyond what is needed.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating the fields returned, including the actionable 'what to do next'. What remains uncovered is failure handling for a missing or invalid job_slug and the shape of the history entries, a minor gap for a single-parameter read.

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 100% and the single job_slug parameter already documents that it comes from search_jobs and my_jobs. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, so the schema does all the work and the 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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Read where one automatic application stands') and enumerates what is returned: status, stopped-on questions, missing answers, history, and next steps. The singular scope ('one automatic application') implicitly separates it from the list-style sibling auto_apply_list, but no sibling is named explicitly, so an agent must infer the boundary.

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?

'Call it again to follow progress' gives real guidance on repeated invocation, which is more than most status tools offer. However, it never says when to prefer this over auto_apply_list, auto_apply_review, or auto_apply_retry, nor any precondition such as having started an application first, so the when-to-use guidance remains implied.

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