submit_application

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that no browser is driven, PII/credentials are read from environment and never stored, and the return value is a plan with specific components. It does not mention permissions, side effects, or failure modes, but provides sufficient behavioral context for an agent.

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 three sentences, starting with the core purpose. It is efficient and front-loaded. Minor verbosity in detailing the plan contents could be condensed, but overall it is appropriately sized for the information conveyed.

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 6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema, the description is incomplete. It explains the return value well but ignores parameter semantics. It adds context about PII and environment but misses guidance on how to use parameters. It is adequate for a high-level plan but lacks detail needed for accurate invocation.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It mentions 'standard field values' and 'ATS' but does not map to individual parameters like title, company, url, ats, location, resume_path. It does not explain why title, company, url are required or how resume_path is used. This is a significant gap.

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 clearly states the tool builds a fill-and-park submission plan for a role, emphasizing it does not drive a browser. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by stating to report outcomes with record_application afterward, and it details the plan contents (ATS, action, field values, etc.). This is a specific verb+resource combination that differentiates it from siblings.

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 description provides a clear workflow: first use submit_application to build a plan, then report outcomes with record_application. It implies the tool is used before recording outcomes. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like build_resume or verify_resume, lacking explicit exclusion criteria.

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