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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), but the description adds what they cannot: the résumé text is transmitted to a named third party (Seeker, seekerscore.com), what comes back, and the important caveat that fit labels are not interview/hiring predictions. That privacy disclosure and the expectation-setting caveat are substantive behavioral context.

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-loaded with the trigger condition and logically ordered (when to call, what it does, what returns, caveat, precondition). The final sentence largely restates the first sentence's trigger, which is mild redundancy rather than bloat.

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 single-parameter, annotated tool with an output schema, the description covers trigger, destination service, return contents, and interpretation caveats. Nothing needed to call it correctly is missing; the return-value summary is extra rather than necessary, but harmless.

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% and the single parameter already documents its length bounds and that phone/address may be omitted. The description adds only the plain-text framing and the CV synonym, so the baseline of 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 ('match résumé' / 'compares it with its live job postings') and names the exact output shape (top 5 matches with title, company, location, fit label, reason, link). An agent knows precisely what the call produces without opening the schema.

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 an explicit trigger ('when the user shares their résumé (or CV) text and wants to see real, currently open jobs that fit it') and an explicit precondition ('Only call after the user has shared a résumé and asked for jobs'). There are no siblings, so no alternative routing is needed.

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