Find the user's employer-site account

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and no destructive behavior, but the description adds useful context beyond them: FreeApply stores no passwords, the user records accounts via the dashboard's Needs you tab, and the tool returns structured known/unknown account results. It also tells the agent what to do when no account exists, including using freeapply_update_job with needs_account and account_url.

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 front-loaded with the core question, then organized into Use, Behavior, Returns, and Errors. Every sentence adds operative guidance, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description supplies the needed return shapes for both known and unknown accounts and explains the follow-up actions for each. It also covers the relevant error case, making the definition complete for an agent deciding and calling the 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that site accepts a domain or URL, strips www., and matches exactly. The description adds only the error condition for values that are not a domain or web address, so it does not meaningfully extend parameter semantics beyond 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource: determining whether the user already made an account on an employer's careers site and which email was used. It explicitly limits scope to employer sites and names job boards such as LinkedIn as out of scope, distinguishing it from siblings like freeapply_report_site_problem.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: when an application form asks the user to sign in or create an account. It also states what the tool is not for (signing in or up), explains why no password is involved, and routes job-board sign-out issues to freeapply_report_site_problem.

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