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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), yet the description still adds non-obvious behavior: nothing is transmitted to employers, no credits are spent, skip reasons feed the matcher, and restore fails on closed postings. Those are exactly the traits an agent cannot infer from the structured fields.

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-loads the core verb and the action semantics before the guardrails, and every clause carries information. It is dense and slightly run-on, though: the parenthetical reason list duplicates the enum already in the schema and inflates the sentence.

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?

With an output schema present, return values need not be explained. The description covers action semantics, side effects, the batch limit, prerequisite state (closed postings), the reason taxonomy, and the natural next call, leaving nothing material an agent would need before invoking it.

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 the baseline is 3 and the description would earn no credit for merely restating the enum values. It does go further by explaining the downstream effect of `reason` (saved with the skip and used to improve future matches) and by framing the id list as coming from getmattered_get_matches, which the schema only hints at.

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?

Opens with a concrete verb+resource framing ("Save or skip job matches") and enumerates all four actions with their effects, including the undo paths. It distinguishes itself from getmattered_apply explicitly, and the id source (getmattered_get_matches) is named, so an agent can place it among 20+ siblings immediately.

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?

Gives an explicit negative rule ("Do not use it to apply; use getmattered_apply") plus the follow-up action ("Next: getmattered_get_matches"), and explains the action-selection logic (save vs skip vs unsave vs restore). The one edge case worth flagging, restoring a closed posting, is called out.

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