Prepare a human-in-the-loop application

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

Despite the 'prepare' wording, the description explicitly clarifies that no application is submitted and that a human performs the final step. This adds practical behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint and idempotentHint 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 one tight, front-loaded sentence. It states the action, the target, the return value, and the key behavioral constraint without any filler.

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?

With one well-documented parameter, non-mutating annotations, and a description that explains both the output and the no-auto-submission behavior, an agent has everything needed to invoke this tool correctly. No output schema exists, but the description covers the expected result.

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 single parameter job_id is fully documented in the schema with a clear source ('from search_jobs / match_jobs'). The description does not add extra parameter-level details, but the schema already carries the necessary meaning.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'prepare an application for an ENTRA job' with a concrete outcome ('returns the direct apply link and a short checklist'). This clearly differentiates it from sibling search/match tools and communicates its distinct role.

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 makes the intended workflow explicit: the tool prepares materials for a human to review and apply, with no auto-submission. It does not name specific sibling alternatives, but the context is clear enough for an agent to know when this tool is appropriate.

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