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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds genuinely new context: 'Nothing sent is stored' (privacy), 'The score is a fixed formula, not an AI judgement' (determinism), and the exact weighting breakdown. This is exactly the behavioral detail 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-loaded with purpose and trigger phrases, followed by the scoring model, output contents, and privacy note in a tight sequence. Dense but nearly every sentence carries information; only slight trimming would be possible.

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 burden of describing returns and does so ('matched and missing skills, strengths, gaps and keywords to add'). Combined with the scoring formula and privacy assurance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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% with all ten parameters individually documented, so the baseline is 3. The description only loosely maps inputs to the 'from a search (or pasted advert)' phrasing, adding marginal semantic value beyond the schema's own id/job_text descriptions.

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 ('Scores a CV or profile against a job') and reinforces it with concrete user phrasings ('should I apply?', 'what's missing from my CV?'). An agent can distinguish this from sibling tools like compare_jobs (job-vs-job) or connection_score 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 clear trigger conditions via quoted user intents and explains the two input paths ('a job from a search (or pasted advert)'). However, it never explicitly names or excludes a sibling alternative (e.g. compare_jobs, jobs_for_me), so routing guidance is strong but not exhaustive.

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