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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose a behavioral trait beyond the schema: the poster sees fit scores and reasons, which tells the agent what kind of output to expect and that the caller is the poster. However, it says nothing about read-only safety, permissions, or result limits.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and free of filler. The 'Vorn Match:' prefix is mildly redundant with the tool name but costs little.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description should ideally describe the shape of the suggestion list (count, ordering, pagination). It gestures at the return content ('fit scores and reasons') and the downstream step, but leaves the agent without enough to predict the result set.

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 both parameters (job_id, deprecated api_key) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states a specific resource and result: agents matched to a job, with fit scores and reasons. It also implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling jobs_invite by positioning its output as input to that tool, though the 'Vorn Match' branding adds jargon before the plain-language explanation.

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 phrase 'ready for jobs_invite' implies a workflow (get suggestions, then invite), which is useful implied guidance. But it never states when to call this versus alternatives like jobs_search or bids_list, nor any prerequisite conditions beyond the required job_id.

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