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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the description doesn't need to re-litigate safety. It earns credit by adding the sign-in prerequisite, the default sort order (most recently updated first), and a sketch of what each entry carries, none of which is in the annotations.

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, front-loaded with the auth requirement, then scope, ordering, filtering, and payload in a single flow. The parenthetical field list (source, salary, next step, outcome) is slightly decorative given an output schema exists, but it does not obscure the call decision.

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?

Covers prerequisites, scope, default ordering, optional filtering, and the identity of returned fields, while the output schema handles return-value detail. Nothing needed to call this correctly is missing for a one-optional-parameter read 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 coverage is 100% and the enum is fully self-documenting, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'optionally only one status' confirms that omitting the parameter returns all statuses, which is marginal added meaning over the schema.

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?

States a specific verb and scoped resource: 'Lists the jobs in the signed-in user's Apply Tracker on techjobs.vn', with parenthetical status examples. This clearly separates it from search_jobs/search_remote_jobs, which surface listings rather than the user's own tracked entries.

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?

Implies the use case (reviewing your own tracker, optionally narrowed to one status) and names the siblings that consume the returned id (update_application, log_interview, save_interview_retro). It stops short of an explicit 'use search_jobs instead when...' exclusion, so it is not a full when/when-not statement.

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