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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses anonymization, excluded fields (name, contact, CV, salary), non-exportability, free usage, a 50-calls/day/key limit, widening behavior, and the fit-component breakdown. These are exactly the behavioral constraints an agent needs before invoking the tool.

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?

Despite being dense, the description is front-loaded with purpose and output shape, then moves through privacy, limits, and required inputs in a compact, information-rich paragraph with 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain output, privacy, limits, and usage requirements. It does all of these, including match count, card fields, anonymization, rate limit, and widening notice.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the important cross-parameter constraint that at least one of query/skills/roles must be supplied, which is not evident from the zero required parameters alone.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Talent search from plain words') and describes the output, scope, and employer context clearly. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the similar sibling match_candidates, so it stops 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?

It states that at least one of query/skills/roles must be provided and frames this as an employer talent-search tool. However, it does not explain when to use this versus match_candidates or other siblings, nor does it provide explicit exclusions.

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