record_application

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden. It discloses de-duplication behavior, default date, and return value (bool and total). However, it does not mention side effects, auth requirements, or idempotency. The description is largely transparent but could detail whether existing entries are updated.

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?

Three sentences with key actions front-loaded. Concise without extraneous details. Could be more structured with bullet points, but effectively communicates main points.

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?

Output schema exists but description already covers return values. Missing context on how record_application differs from submit_application or ledger_summary. For a tool with 7 parameters and many siblings, more completeness is needed to guide correct use.

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 0%, so description must compensate but barely does. Only status and date are vaguely mentioned (but no date parameter exists). No explanation for company, role, ats, note, tier, apply_url. Defaults are not explained. This severely hinders correct parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool appends a row to the application ledger, deduplicated by role. It uses specific verbs and resources ('append one row', 'application ledger'), and distinguishes from siblings like submit_application and list_applications by focusing on logging rather than submitting or listing.

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?

Does not explicitly state when to use vs. alternatives, but implies usage for logging not submitting. Provides context on de-duplication and status vocabulary, helping the agent understand constraints. Lacks direct comparison with submit_application or ledger_summary.

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