Prepare an application packet

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

The description explicitly discloses that the tool creates a local draft and does not send anything, which adds valuable behavior beyond the annotations. It also reveals that it only drafts answers supported by verified profile data, a useful constraint. This is consistent with annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false).

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with a clear list of actions and the key outcome. No unnecessary words or repetition; it earns its place.

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 main internal steps and the critical side-effect (local draft, no sending), which is sufficient for a preparation tool with no output schema. It does not detail return values or error conditions, but these are less critical given the tool's focused role in the application workflow.

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 schema describes 'force' but not 'jobId', leaving 50% coverage. The description indirectly implies jobId via 'matched track' but does not explicitly explain either parameter's role or format. The description adds some context about the workflow but does not compensate fully for the missing jobId description.

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 uses specific verbs (builds, loads, drafts, selects) to clearly state what the tool does, and distinguishes itself from submission tools by noting 'nothing is sent.' It is clearly about preparing an application packet for a specific job, setting it apart from siblings like preview_application or submit_application.

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 implies this is a pre-submission step by stating it 'creates a local draft; nothing is sent,' which signals when to use it. It also provides an implicit exclusion (not for sending), though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or give a when-not-to-use scenario.

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