Report a job site signed out or limited

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

Goes well past the annotations: describes the downstream effect on freeapply_claim_job (refuses new jobs from the reported site), the duration of each state (signed-out until user re-confirms in dashboard; limit paused until midnight), idempotency in plain terms ('reporting the same problem again changes nothing'), and who can reverse it ('only the user can mark a site ready'). This explains the destructiveHint consequence better than the annotation alone does.

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 the purpose and the sibling contrast, then organized into Behavior / Parameters / Returns / Errors blocks. Dense but every line carries information; the Returns and Errors lines could be folded in more tightly, but nothing is wasted.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description supplies the return shape ({site, status, sites} with ready flags) and an error case (a site the user didn't choose). Combined with the state/pause semantics, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret the result.

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% and both params are enums, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by interpreting each status value with examples ('a sign-in page', '"You reached today's Easy Apply limit"') and by tying site to the ids listed in freeapply_status. Slight over-reliance on the schema for the site enumeration itself.

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 (tells FreeApply a chosen job site can't be used, signed out or limit reached) and explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling freeapply_find_site_account (employer careers site vs. user-chosen sites like LinkedIn/Indeed). An agent can route between the two without opening a 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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('as soon as a chosen job site shows a sign-in page or a daily limit'), a fallback plan ('keep applying on the ready sites or on company career sites'), and a hard exclusion ('never type a password'). The distinction from freeapply_find_site_account is spelled out rather than implied.

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