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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the ranking signals (repetition, position, required/preferred headings), that high-priority terms are flagged, and that a dated rules version governs the scoring — real insight into how the output is derived. It does not describe output shape in detail, which keeps it short of a 5.

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 with the core action and ranking method front-loaded, then the sibling pointer, then the constraint and rules version. Every sentence carries information, though the length range duplicates the schema.

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, so the description must convey the return: it does, describing ranked keywords with high-priority flags. Combined with the routing hint to match_job, an agent has enough to call this correctly, though the exact result structure remains only roughly sketched.

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?

Only one parameter and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents that job_description is the full plain-text posting with a 120–20,000 character bound. The description restates the same length range, adding little beyond the schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource ('List the skills, tools and requirements a job posting asks for') plus the differentiating behavior (ranked emphasis). It explicitly separates itself from the sibling match_job, so an agent can pick between them without opening schemas.

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 clear routing context: use this to extract and rank posting keywords, and use match_job when the question is what a resume already covers. No explicit when-not or prerequisite beyond that, but the alternative is named with its selecting condition.

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