Summary

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

The annotations already declare this is a read-only, closed-world tool. The description adds the important cohort nuance: since/until filters by submission period while statuses reflect where applications stand now. It does not specify boundary inclusivity or empty-range behavior, so it is strong but not exhaustive.

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 definition is front-loaded with the core behavior, then explains parameter effects, then routes to alternatives. Every sentence earns its place, and the size is appropriate for a two-parameter summary tool.

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?

The tool is a read-only summary with two optional parameters and an output schema. The description covers purpose, parameter behavior, and sibling alternatives, leaving no material gap for correct 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema itself documents since/until as period bounds for the submitted cohort. The description adds useful meaning beyond the schema by explaining that the result shows applications submitted in that period and their current status, though it does not add date-format or inclusivity details.

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 specific verb and resource: it counts job applications in the tracker. It names the concrete breakdowns (status, submitted/not-yet, submissions per month) and distinguishes itself from funnel and reply_times.

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?

It explicitly routes overlapping analytical questions to alternatives: funnel for reply/interview rates, reply_times for reply speed, and followups_due/stale_applications for next actions. It also clarifies the added behavior when since/until are supplied.

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