Get Account

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

Annotations already mark readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, but the description adds valuable detail not in annotations: 'it spends no credits and changes nothing.' This clarifies the credit cost, a side effect an agent must know. No contradiction with the annotations.

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 information-dense but tightly organized: it opens with the tool's primary output, then gives usage timing, then read-only behavior, exclusions, and follow-up steps. Every sentence adds necessary guidance without padding or repetition.

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 takes no inputs and has an output schema, the description fully covers the operation: what it shows, when to call it, what not to use it for, and what to do next. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

The tool has zero parameters and the schema is fully documented (vacuously, 100% coverage). With 0 params, the baseline is 4; the description does not need to discuss parameters since there are none.

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 explicitly states the tool shows the user's AI Applyd account with a detailed breakdown across plan, tokens, applications, preferences, readiness, resumes, and apply mode. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming the change tools it is not: 'Do not use it to change anything; use aiapplyd_update_job_preferences or aiapplyd_set_resume.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call it first, and before applying to several jobs.' It also gives explicit alternatives and when-not: 'Do not use it to change anything; use aiapplyd_update_job_preferences or aiapplyd_set_resume.' Next-step logic is even provided based on resume status.

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