authorize_application

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses the side effect of recording authorization, the non-actions of never submitting and never transmitting résumés, and the success response containing apply_channel and resume_transmitted=false. It stops short of documenting error behavior or idempotency, but the core behavioral profile is transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core action and restriction, and the Args section is cleanly organized. The résumé prohibition is repeated several times for safety emphasis, which is slightly redundant but defensible for a privacy-sensitive 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?

Without an output schema, the description defines the return values and the intended follow-up: the user submits via the employer's apply_channel. It lacks error semantics for authorized=false and duplicate applications, but otherwise it is complete for a small three-parameter tool.

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%, and the description compensates by explaining all three parameters: job_id provenance via search_jobs/check_watches, fingerprint as anonymous, and authorized as 'must be true' per-job consent. This adds both semantic meaning and validation guidance that the bare schema lacks.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record an authorized, employer-direct application' and a hard exclusion 'REFUSES résumés.' It further clarifies the rename from apply, explicitly stating it records authorization and 'never submits anything on their behalf,' making it easy to distinguish from any submission-like sibling.

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 states when to use it: on a job returned by search_jobs/check_watches, after receiving explicit per-job consent with authorized set to true. It also gives when-not behavior by refusing résumés and warning not to paste résumé content, and it directs the user to the apply_channel as the correct alternative path for actual submission.

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