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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses ordering (newest first), that results are postings already matched to the profile, per-item metadata (matched timestamp, seen-on-site flag), the auth prerequisite, the account_required error, and that the tool is free. These are exactly the operational facts annotations cannot convey.

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 identity of the feed and packs payload/ordering details into one dense sentence, with auth and cost as short follow-ups. Slightly over-stuffed with parentheticals (e.g., '/matches feed') but no sentence is wasted.

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-param read tool with no output schema, it covers auth requirements, error behavior, ordering, and the shape of returned items, which is most of what an agent needs. The one remaining gap is the lone limit parameter, which is left entirely unexplained.

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?

There is one parameter (limit, default 10, max 20) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it — no indication of what limit controls or that results are capped at 20. With low coverage the description is supposed to compensate, and it does not.

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: 'The job postings Alion matched to the signed-in account's profile (its /matches feed)', plus the ordering (newest first) and payload shape (compact posting, match time, seen flag). This clearly separates it from siblings like search_jobs (search) and match_people (people side of matching).

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?

Explicitly scopes use to an assistant acting on behalf of a person connected to their own Alion account via OAuth or API key, and states the failure mode without an account ('answers account_required'). It does not name sibling alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when to prefer search_jobs over this feed), so it falls short of a 5.

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