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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool uses saved filters and excludes jobs already seen, applied to, or rejected, which is valuable behavioral context beyond the schema. It does not elaborate on error handling or response format, but for a read tool this is acceptable.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and the second sentence adds essential behavioral and usage details with no redundant filler. Every word 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 tool is a parameterized read operation with no output schema or annotations. The description adequately covers its purpose, filter source, exclusions, and the need to update the hunt separately. It does not describe the response structure, which could be helpful, but given the tool's straightforward nature and schema-covered parameters, the description is complete enough for effective use.

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 input schema already covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (jobHuntId, page, limit). The tool description adds minor semantic value by explaining that jobHuntId points to a saved configuration with filters like titles, locations, skills, and salary, but does not significantly enhance the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 function: 'Get new job matches based on a saved job hunt configuration.' It specifies the resource (job matches) and the mechanism (saved job hunt configuration), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_jobs by emphasizing that it returns only unseen, unapplied, unrejected jobs using pre-saved filters.

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 clear usage context: use this tool when you want to retrieve job matches for an existing job hunt. It explicitly mentions the prerequisite of having a job hunt configured and instructs to use 'update_job_hunt' to make changes, offering an alternative for filter modification. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or contrast it with search_jobs.

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