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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavior beyond that: the ranking signals used (repetition, position, required/preferred headings), that high-priority items are flagged, the accepted input size, and a rules version pin. It does not say what happens on invalid or too-short input, 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?

Front-loaded with the use condition, then the output, then routing to the sibling — a sensible order. Slightly dense as a single block, and the 'Rules version 2026-11-05.2' suffix is noise for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 one parameter, no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the output shape (ranked list with flags) and the input constraint, which is what an agent needs. Only error/edge-case behavior is unaddressed.

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 the 120–20,000 character range and the fetch_job_post fallback for links. The description restates the length bound and adds no new meaning about the parameter, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the skills, tools and requirements a job posting asks for') plus the ranking logic, and explicitly contrasts itself with match_job. An agent can distinguish it from check_resume or tailor_resume without opening any 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 has only a job posting (no resume yet)') and a named alternative for the adjacent case ('Use match_job to see which a resume already shows'). The when-to-use and when-to-use-something-else are both stated.

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