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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the word-by-word matching rule, the 'at least half the query words' threshold, ignoring words under 3 letters, and relevance ordering — all beyond what annotations provide.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then filtering modes, then a compact args summary. Dense but every sentence carries information; the trailing args recap slightly duplicates the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose, filters, and matching behavior. The only gap is the absence of guidance relative to siblings like get_career_memory.

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 $defs already document each parameter, including defaults and limits, so the description largely echoes it (limit default 10/max 30). It does add matching semantics not spelled out in the schema — the sub-3-letter word exclusion and the 'more words matched first' ordering — which justifies being above the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('get short, fact-checked career cards') and enumerates the topical coverage (recruiter behaviour, ATS, resumes, etc.), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings like get_career_memory or add_career_fact.

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 the use case ('ground advice in') and lays out three filtering modes, so an agent can infer when to reach for it. But it never states when to prefer it over get_career_memory or other retrieval siblings, and gives no exclusions.

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