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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds real behavioral context: ordering ('jobs that apply automatically come first'), the default scoping (fresh='new' means last two weeks, match default excludes weak matches), and the per-job payload contents. This is genuinely useful information an agent cannot derive from the annotations.

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 when-to-use triggers before the behavioral detail, which is the right order. The middle sentence listing what each job carries is somewhat run-on, but every clause carries information rather than 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?

There is no output schema, and the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields (match percentage, recruiter-pass verdict, auto-apply status, awaiting-answer flag, already-applied flag) plus ordering and default filtering. For a 7-parameter, 0-required list tool, nothing essential is missing.

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 71% and four parameters have enums, so the schema already documents sort, fresh, match, applied, and auto_only. The description only restates the filter axes ('match tier, freshness and applies-automatically; page with offset') without adding syntax or edge-case detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 ('live vacancies matched to this account's CV, ranked') with the scope (uses the saved CV, no profile read needed). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like refresh_matches, explain_job_match, and list_hidden_jobs, which all concern match data but do different things.

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 user-utterance triggers ('find me jobs', 'my top matches', 'remote marketing jobs that fit my resume') and explicitly removes a prerequisite ('no need to read the profile first'). It does not, however, name alternatives such as explain_job_match for drilling into a single match or refresh_matches for updating the list.

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