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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so safety is covered; the description adds genuinely new context by enumerating what the comparison surfaces (score breakdown, matched/missing skills, notice period, recommendation). It still says nothing about cost/latency of generating a comparison or whether results are cached, which would be the remaining value-add.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core action leads and the output dimensions follow in a compact parenthetical. Slightly dense but nothing is wasteful.

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 simple two-parameter, read-only tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description supplies the missing piece by sketching the returned comparison dimensions. It is essentially complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly, lacking only tie-in to sibling tools.

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% and both parameters are documented in-schema, so the baseline is 3. The description only reinforces the existing 2-5 bound on candidateProfileIds and adds no new meaning about format or ordering of the jobId/candidateProfileIds inputs.

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 ('Side-by-side comparison of 2-5 candidates for a job') plus the comparison dimensions, so the agent knows exactly what it produces. It does not name or distinguish itself from siblings like find_candidates or screen_applicants, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Usage is only implied: the '2-5 candidates for a job' framing signals a comparison-of-a-shortlist scenario, and 'with a recommendation' hints at a decision-support use case. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no alternative tool is named for cases like comparing more than 5 candidates or screening a larger pool.

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