preflight

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool may wait ('this call has already waited'), enforces pacing, checks the daily cap and failure breaker, and that 'allowed' false means the caller must not proceed. This is meaningful behavioral transparency beyond a simple read/write classification.

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 most important instruction ('Call this first') and is dense with relevant behavioral details. It is slightly verbose with the bullet-like checklist, but every sentence contributes to correct usage. No filler or repetition.

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 description covers what the tool does, how to interpret its outcome, and the critical waiting behavior. Since an output schema exists, return-value explanation is not needed. The only notable gap is parameter semantics, which prevents a 5, but the overall flow context is strong.

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 does not explain either parameter beyond the schema's names. It implies that the posting is identified via the job, but it does not clarify the role of 'job_id' vs 'job_url', why one is required, or how they relate. The description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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's purpose: 'Ask permission before starting an application. Call this first.' It names a specific verb ('ask permission'), the resource (application), and the specific checks performed. This distinguishes it from siblings like 'check_already_applied' and 'guard_status' by framing it as the first-step gate before the application flow.

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 gives an explicit usage directive: 'Call this first' before starting an application. It explains what the tool checks and what to do when 'allowed' is false, but it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it. This is clear context without formal exclusions.

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