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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is known; the description's added value is the stated prerequisites and the fact that a score is returned. It does not say what the recalculation overwrites (the prior stored score) or why the operation is marked destructive and non-idempotent, which is the one thing an agent most needs here.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then prerequisites, then return value. Little waste, though the return-value sentence is thin and could be folded into the prerequisite sentence.

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 two fully documented params, no output schema and annotations covering the safety profile, the description covers action, prerequisites and result. The gap is the absence of any statement about the effect on the previously stored score, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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% for both parameters (candidateId, jobDescriptionId), so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds only that the job is a 'job position' with a screening configured — context, not parameter-level detail. 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?

Specific verb ('Recalculate') plus resource ('AI matching score') and explicit scope ('for a candidate against a specific job position'). The singular candidate/job scope implicitly separates it from the bulk sibling recalculate_job_scores, though that sibling is never named.

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 preconditions ('job has a screening configured and an application linking the candidate to the job') help an agent decide whether invocation will succeed. However, there is no guidance on when to choose this over recalculate_job_scores or get_candidate_score_breakdown, both of which read similar data.

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