Get job-search statistics

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description still adds value beyond them: 'counted fresh from the local database each call, nothing cached' discloses cost and data freshness, which annotations cannot express. It also defines a non-obvious metric inline ('response_rate – % of applications with a real reply; automatic acknowledgements not counted') and clarifies last_reply_check.

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?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then labeled Use/Behavior/Returns blocks. The Returns enumeration is long but each field grouping (counts, rates, aggregations) earns its place because no output schema exists. Slightly dense, but structured rather than rambling.

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 must convey what comes back, and it does so field-by-field including units (percent) and semantics (needs_you = jobs waiting on the user; daily = applications per day). Combined with cost/freshness disclosure, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret 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?

Zero parameters, so the schema carries nothing to explain; the description correctly states 'No parameters', removing any question about required filters. It stops there rather than adding semantics a parameterless tool would need, which 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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource framing ('The user's job search in numbers: applications, replies, interviews, offers, rates') and immediately names the two siblings it is not (freeapply_list_jobs, freeapply_get_status). An agent can distinguish this from list_jobs and get_status without opening any 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?

Explicit usage section: 'Use: to report progress, e.g. when wrapping up a session. Not for finding a particular job.' Both a positive trigger and an exclusion are stated, and the alternative for per-job lookups is named. Nothing is left to inference.

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