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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, closed-world and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value beyond them: results are 'verified' and currently open, and it discloses data handling ('keeps only an anonymous record of the roles, location and work mode searched, never the summary or skills'). No rate limits or result-count behavior, so not a 5.

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 what the tool does, followed by the data-extraction rules and then the privacy note. Every sentence carries a distinct instruction; slightly dense at three sentences but 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?

With an output schema present, return values need no explanation, and the description covers scope, input hygiene and privacy. The one missing piece is how this relates to search_jobs, which is the agent's only real ambiguity for an 8-parameter matcher.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by imposing a hard PII prohibition (never pass name, email, phone, address or ID numbers) and by restating the conditional nature of seniority and work mode, which meaningfully constrains what the agent should put in those fields.

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 and resource ('Finds verified, currently open jobs... that fit a CV') plus a geography scope (Argentina/LATAM). Clear enough to act on, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling search_jobs tool, so an agent has no in-description basis for choosing between them.

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 concrete usage context: the agent must read the CV itself and pass only job-relevant facts, seniority/work mode only when stated, and newWithinDays=1 for a daily scheduled run. It stops short of naming when-to-use versus search_jobs or any exclusion condition, so it is clear context without alternatives.

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