check_applied

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal useful behavior: matching is by job_id, exact URL, or fuzzy title+company, and it can catch duplicates across boards. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how it behaves when no matching parameters are supplied.

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 two concise sentences with no filler. The user-facing question is front-loaded, followed by the matching modes and the critical usage instruction. Every part earns its place.

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 description adequately explains when to call the tool and how to target a job, but it omits return semantics and post-check handling. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, an agent still has to infer what kind of result comes back and what to do with it.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps all four parameters to their intended usage: job_id, URL, and the title+company fuzzy combination. This is meaningful semantic context, though it does not specify whether at least one parameter is required or what happens when multiple modes are passed.

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 clear action (check whether an application already exists) and a specific resource (a particular job/vacancy). It also specifies distinct lookup modes—job_id, exact URL, or fuzzy title+company—which makes the tool's purpose concrete and separates it from broader tools like list_applications.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'ALWAYS call before a manual browser application.' This tells an agent when to use the tool, but it does not name sibling alternatives or explain when this check is unnecessary, so it stops short of full comparative guidance.

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