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

Annotations already declare this a safe, idempotent read, so the description focuses on what they cannot express: an authentication prerequisite ('Requires techjobs.vn sign-in') and the fact that results are implicitly scoped to the signed-in user's own tracker. It also discloses the 14-day default window for upcoming_only, which is real behavioral context beyond 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 tight sentences, with the auth prerequisite and the core action front-loaded before the optional filters and the sibling pointer. The parenthetical filter clause is dense but every element carries 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no further explanation; the description covers the auth gate, the default scope, both filters, and the write-path alternative. For a 3-parameter read tool with full annotation coverage, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds the cross-parameter interaction the schema does not spell out: upcoming_only defaults to the next 14 days 'unless days is set.' That linkage is genuine value beyond the per-field descriptions.

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 resource ('Lists the interview rounds in the signed-in user's Apply Tracker') and enumerates the returned fields (time, format, link, result). It also distinguishes itself from the write sibling by naming log_interview, so an agent can route without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly frames the two optional scoping modes (per-application via application_id, upcoming-only via upcoming_only with a 14-day default), and points to log_interview as the tool for adding or changing a round. When-to-use and the alternative are both stated rather than inferred.

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