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

Beyond the annotations (which only give the generic destructive/readOnly/idempotent flags), the description discloses quota cost per match, asynchronous execution with get_vacancy_detail(analysis_id) to retrieve the result, and precise side-effect semantics for each failure path (posting_closed sets closed_at and puts the match away; teaser spends nothing). There is a mild tension with idempotentHint=false given the reused=true caching path, but the description's disclosure level is far richer than the annotations and is not a genuine contradiction.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries real information (teaser handling, quota, async retrieval, error codes). It is dense as a single block, which slightly hurts scanability, but there is essentially no filler.

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?

For a one-parameter, output-schema-backed, asynchronous tool, the description covers the operation, its alternatives, its cost model, how to fetch results, and the full set of terminal error states with their side effects. Nothing material needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Only one parameter (match_id), and the description references it only as 'by match id' without adding format, prefix, or lookup guidance. The schema carries the bulk of the meaning (its own description points to get_radar_matches), so a baseline 3 is appropriate rather than compensating heavily.

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 names a specific verb and resource (analyze one radar match by id against the user's resume) and immediately bounds the operation ('using the posting text the radar already stored; it does not fetch the job page'). It also distinguishes itself from a near-sibling by naming analyze_tracked_vacancy for the full-posting case, so an agent can route correctly.

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 gives explicit when-to-use and when-not rules: teaser postings under 400 characters are not analyzed and instead should go to analyze_tracked_vacancy with the full text as 'description'. It also states the idempotent path (already-analyzed matches return reused=true) and quota conditions, so no routing is left to inference.

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