Check applications

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing what is persisted (only job_ids, keyed by anonymous fingerprint, never a name or résumé), the effect of add/remove on the follow list, and an important epistemic limit — the system sees postings, never the employer's inbox, so the agent must not claim an employer ignored the user. The 30-day not_verified_recently rule is a concrete behavioral detail not available anywhere else. No rate limits or freshness beyond that are given.

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?

Front-loaded with the user question, then scope, then parameters, then output ordering — a sensible structure. It is longer than typical and the mixed user-voice framing plus output-formatting instructions make it slightly dense, but nearly every sentence carries operational information the agent needs.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description specifies the return shape: a summary sentence plus rows bucketed as closed, not_verified_recently, and open, each with status_in_words, and prescribes ordering. Combined with the storage and mutation semantics, an agent can call this and present results correctly without further information.

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 the description must carry all three parameters, and it does: fingerprint is defined as the same anonymous fingerprint the user's watches use, add_job_ids as job_ids from search_jobs the user reports applying to, and remove_job_ids as un-following ones they added. That is complete coverage where the schema offers none.

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 opening line frames the exact user question, then states a specific verb and resource: follows the postings a fingerprint applied to and reports whether each is still live, closed, or not_verified_recently. It is clearly distinguishable from check_watches and authorize_application, which it names directly.

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?

Gives explicit triggers ("user says they applied to postings found in this index"), tells the agent to pass add_job_ids in that case and remove_job_ids to stop following, and says to call it again at the start of a later session. Alternatives (authorize_application, search_jobs as the job_id source) are named with the condition that links them.

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