Preview or send shared data

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

Goes well past the annotations: preview is read-only and sends nothing, sync reaches the internet and cannot be undone from here, it also fires automatically every 12 hours, and sync is refused moments after the last sync. Return shapes and failure reasons (Terms not accepted, recent sync, server unreachable) are spelled out, consistent with openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false.

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 purpose, then labeled Behavior/Parameters/Returns/Errors sections that make scanning easy. Slightly redundant: the preview-vs-sync distinction is restated in the Parameters block after already appearing in the usage paragraph.

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, yet the description documents both return shapes (analytics_request and talent-pool request for preview; {sent, result} or {sent: false, reason} for sync) and enumerates the refusal reasons. For a one-parameter tool with a network side effect, nothing material is missing.

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 the enum already names both values, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real per-value semantics — preview safe any time, sync sends now and may be rejected right after a prior sync — rather than restating the enum.

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 pair (shows/preview vs sends/sync) and the exact resource (the data the user chose to share with the FreeApply server). It explicitly distinguishes itself from the nearest sibling, freeapply_get_settings: choices vs. the exact data those choices send.

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 direct routing rule — 'Use preview when the user asks what is shared, and sync only when the user asks to send now' — plus an exclusion ('Not for changing the choices: the user does that in the dashboard') and an alternative surface (Settings, Data sharing). 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.