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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description adds that no index setup is required for the input document and that results are ranked by semantic similarity, but it omits return format, ranking behavior, and any limits on N.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core behavior front-loaded. There is no redundant or filler content.

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?

It is adequate for a read-only matching tool whose annotations cover safety, but without an output schema it does not explain the shape of returned matching documents. It also mentions 'top-N' without clarifying how N is determined, since no top_n parameter exists.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema about doc_type, index_type, document_text, or the automatically injected index_key.

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 states a specific action and result: it accepts a resume or JD and returns top-N semantically similar documents from the indexed corpus. This is clear, but it does not distinguish itself from likely siblings such as search_indexed_documents or match_end_to_end.

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 implies usage by describing the input document and indexed corpus, but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions. With siblings like search_indexed_documents and score_resume_against_jd, an agent must infer which tool is appropriate.

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