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

Annotations already declare this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying that results are live and calibrated, and that each job includes a recruiter-pass verdict and application-sent status. No contradiction with annotations is present.

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 tightly written: three sentences, purpose first, then result contents, then filtering controls. No fluff and no repetition of schema defaults.

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, the description appropriately lists the key per-job fields and the main filters. It is slightly brief on pagination details and does not mention empty-CV or no-match behavior, but it is sufficient for a read-only list operation in a large sibling 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 covers 67% of parameters, and the description restates that filtering is by match tier and freshness and pagination by offset. This adds mild grouping value, but it does not meaningfully enrich beyond the schema's own parameter descriptions for sort, fresh, match, and applied, nor explain limit or offset semantics beyond a brief mention.

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 names a specific verb and resource: listing live vacancies matched to the account's CV, ranked. It also declares what each result contains (match percentage, recruiter-pass verdict, application status), which clearly distinguishes it from siblings like list_my_applications, list_hidden_jobs, or get_job_posting.

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 gives clear operational context: this tool returns matched vacancies for the current account, filterable by match tier and freshness, with offset pagination. It does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended use case is evident from the description.

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