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

Beyond annotations (which declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses that every application passes the same gates as the signed-in flow including an honesty classifier, that answers are drawn from the owner's profile and never invented, and that it requires a key or sign-in. It also hints at consumption by mentioning key_status reports how many applications are left. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 dense but every sentence carries essential information: the action, prerequisites, the need to call key_status, consent requirement, and the honesty classifier behavior. It's front-loaded with the action and then the required steps. Slightly long, but no filler; a 4 is warranted for being thorough without being verbose.

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 tool's complexity (mutation, external effects, prerequisites), the description covers everything an agent needs: what to do first (key_status), what to confirm (consent), what resources are required (key/plan/pass/mandate), and the behavioral guarantees (honesty classifier, profile-based answers). With an output schema present, return format is not required. The description is complete for correct invocation.

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 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters: jobId is 'The job id from search_jobs' and note is 'Optional note stored with the request (not sent to the employer).' The description doesn't add extra parameter-specific guidance (e.g., format or usage of jobId), but with full schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Ask the board's apply agent to submit an application to this job on behalf of the key's owner.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like application_status or check_apply_support, which are read/check tools. The core action is unambiguous.

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 provides explicit pre-call steps: 'call key_status first' to determine missing prerequisites, and 'Ask the person for a yes on this specific job id before calling.' It also enumerates required conditions (key, active plan/pass, mandate), effectively telling the agent when and how to use the tool. It doesn't name alternatives but gives a clear workflow.

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