request_submit_confirmation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the token's single-use and expiry, the requirement that `summary` list exact values, and that the tool may fill fields itself. It also implies the return includes `summary_to_show` and `confirmation_id`. This is above-average transparency, though it doesn't cover error cases.

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 three sentences with zero fluff. It opens with the purpose, then details the `summary` constraint, then the workflow and token characteristics. Every sentence adds necessary information, and the structure is front-loaded.

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 the purpose, workflow, and critical constraints, and references the next step (`submit_application`). It doesn't explain `job_url`, but that is likely self-evident and required by the schema. An output schema exists, so the description need not detail the return format. It is complete enough for correct use, though it omits prerequisites like having a job URL.

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%, so the description must compensate. It thoroughly explains `summary` (must list fields and exact values, and call out tool-filled values). However, it does not explain `job_id` or `job_url` at all. Since `job_url` is required, this is a significant gap, though partial compensation for one parameter exists.

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: 'Request approval before submitting, and get a one-time token.' It names a specific verb, resource, and outcome, and naturally distinguishes itself from the sibling `submit_application` which performs the actual submission.

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 provides explicit workflow guidance: show the summary, get explicit yes, then call `submit_application` with the token. It also warns about token single-use and expiry, which informs when to use this tool. It doesn't explicitly list alternatives, but the sequence is unambiguous.

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