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

Annotations already cover readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior. The description adds genuinely new context beyond that: 'Nothing sent is stored' (privacy), 'the score is a fixed formula, not an AI judgement' (how ranking is derived), and the output includes matched and missing skills per job. That is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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?

The body is dense and front-loaded, with the search-and-rank behavior stated before the privacy and scoring caveats. The opening 'Job Spotter. The best current jobs for a CV.' merely restates the name and title, which is the one piece of dead weight.

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 no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does describe the payload (ranked jobs with matched and missing skills). It also notes nothing is stored and how the score is computed. All 11 parameters are optional, which the description's 'or past titles' framing partly explains.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real meaning on top: it explains that the tool works from target roles 'or past titles', documenting the fallback relationship between target_roles, titles, and the optional cv field that the schema states only in isolation.

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: it 'searches current jobs for the person's target roles (or past titles) and place, and ranks them by match score.' That is concrete enough to distinguish the function. However, it never distinguishes itself from close siblings like jobspotter_search_jobs, jobspotter_match_cv, or jobspotter_whats_hiring, whose functions overlap heavily with this one.

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?

Trigger phrases ('for "find jobs that fit my CV"', '"what jobs should I apply for?"') give a clear implied context for when to reach for this tool. But with several near-identical jobspotter siblings in the catalog, no explicit when-not or 'use X instead' routing is given, leaving the agent to guess between jobs_for_me, search_jobs, and match_cv.

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