Inspect application form

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explains exactly what the tool returns, what applicationType values mean, how applyBlocked should gate submission, and that external applications must be reported rather than auto-submitted.

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 what the tool returns, followed by a clearly numbered workflow. Though long, every line adds operational value: order, alternatives, stop conditions, and approval gates. The structure makes it easy to follow.

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?

Given the tool's role in a multi-step application flow, the description covers prerequisites, ordering, conditional branches, auth handling, and safety requirements. It names return fields and applicationType variants even without an output schema, so an agent has enough context to invoke it correctly.

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 schema already documents job_id as either a numeric id or a /jobs/123 URL. The description does not add parameter-level detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 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?

The description states a precise verb and resource: inspecting an application form to return applicationType, required fields, external apply hints, and applied status. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like waas_get_job, waas_search, and waas_submit_application.

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 required WORKFLOW explicitly orders this tool after quota checks and job/company retrieval, names the sibling alternatives at each step, and gives clear stop conditions for external, needs_login, and weekly_limit_reached cases. It also instructs to skip already_applied jobs and never auto-submit.

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